LIBRARY 


University  of  California. 


RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


TIbe  XHntverstti^  ot  CbtcaGo 

FOUNDED   BY   JOHN    D.    ROCKEFELLER 


THE  IDEA  OF  THE  RESURRECTION 
IN  THE  ANTE-NICENE  PERIOD 


A  DISSERTATION 
SUBMITTED     TO     THE     FACULTY     OF     THE     GRADUATE     DIVINITY     SCHOOL 

in    candidacy    for     the    degree     of 
'  doctor  of  philosophy 

(department  of  new  testament  literature  and  interpretation) 


BY 

CALVIN  KLOPP  STAUDT 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


Ube  "Clnlverstti?  ot  Cbicago 

FOUNDED   DV   JOHN   D.    KOCKEFELLER 


THE  IDEA  OF  THE  RESURRECTION 
IN  THE  ANTE-NICENE  PERIOD 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED     TO     THE     FACULTY     OF     THE     GRADUATE     DIVINITY     SCHOOL 

IN      CANDIDACY      FOR      THE      DEGREE      OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  new  testament  literature  and  interpretation) 


CALVIN  KLOPP  STAUDT 


-     J 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


^7 


e^^  ok 


Copyright  1909  Bv 
The  University  of  Chicago 


Published  March  1909 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.  S.  A. 


PREFACE 

This  treatise  aims  to  trace  historically  the  development  of  the  idea  of 
the  resurrection  from  its  origin  in  the  Old  Testament,  through  Jewish  and 
Christian  literature,  to  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  precise  theme  is  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  of  men  as  held  in  the 
ante-Nicene  period.  To  discover  this,  the  extant  literature  of  this  period 
has  been  carefully  studied  and  investigated.  The  volumes  in  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Christian  Library  have  been  read,  and  passages  pertaining  to  the 
resurrection  studied  in  critical  editions  of  the  Fathers.  The  material  is  so 
grouped  and  treated  that  the  story  of  the  resurrection  may  be  readily  fol- 
lowed through  the  various  stages.  The  aim  of  the  author  has  been  not 
merely  to  set  forth  the  different  historical  strata  in  the  idea  of  the  resurrection, 
but  also  to  deal  with  influences  and  inferences,  in  the  hope  that  through 
this  extensive  study  in  early  Christian  literature  suggestions  may  have  been 
given  for  a  more  intensive  study  of  the  question  of  the  resurrection  in  the 
New  Testament  and  of  the  facts  pertaining  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
The  author  wishes  to  acknowledge  special  obligation  to  Professor  Ernest 
D.  Burton,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  for  generous  help  and  inspiration. 

C.    K.    S. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  Jewish  and  Greek  Literature i 

II.  The  New  Testament g 

III.  The  Apostolic  Fathers i8 

IV.  The  Apologists 26 

V.  The  Gnostics 39 

VI.  The  Great  Polemicists 46 

VII.  The  Alexandrian  School 60 

VIII.   The  Later  Writers 65 

IX.  Conclusion 71 


CHAPTER  I 

JEWISH  AND  GREEK  LITERATURE 

This  essay  aims  to  trace  the  idea  of  the  resurrection,  both  of  Jesus  and 
of  men,  as  held  in  the  ante-Nicene  period.  The  Uterature  of  the  period 
has  been  carefully  studied  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  what  men  thought 
about  the  resurrection  and  what  doctrines  they  held  concerning  it.  The 
problem  is  confined  mainly  to  a  discussion  of  the  precise  nature  and  charac- 
ter of  the  resurrection.  The  distinction  between  the  resurrection  and 
the  larger  subject  of  the  future  life — to  which  belongs  the  conception  of 
Hades,  judgment,  second  coming,  millennium,  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, and  redemption — is  constantly  kept  in  mind.  However,  all  these 
elements  of  eschatology  are  often  knit  up  with  the  resurrection;  and  so 
far  as  they  present  collateral  testimony  to  the  resurrection  they  are  brought 
into  the  discussion.  Moreover,  in  the  history  of  the  resurrection-idea, 
especially  in  the  early  strata,  a  constant  distinction  is  made  between  the 
resurrection  of  the  Jews  and  that  of  the  Gentiles,  and  between  the  resur- 
rection of  the  righteous  and  that  of  the  wicked.  But  this  again  is  not  the 
main  subject  of  our  study,  and  is  considered  only  when  it  throws  light  and 
shade  upon  a  more  vital  and  intricate  problem.  The  essential  purpose  of 
the  essay  is  to  set  forth  the  nature  of  that  which  was  supposed  to  continue 
in  the  after-life. 

A  prerequisite  to  the  study  of  the  resurrection  in  early  Christian  litera- 
ture is  a  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament  conception.  But  even  this 
does  not  comprise  all  the  necessary  antecedent  conditions.  The  idea  of 
the  resurrection  did  not  leap  into  life  full-grown,  having  its  first  appearance 
in  the  New  Testament;  it  passed  through  certain  stages  and  a  long  period 
of  development.  There  are  presuppositions  to  the  New  Testament  material 
which  dare  not  be  overlooked;  for  the  earUest  conceptions  are  genetically 
related  to  the  New  Testament  teachings,  and  besides,  the  literature  of  pre- 
Christian  times  exerted  a  direct  influence  on  post-apostolic  times.  Inquiry 
must,  therefore,  be  made  into  the  Old  Testament  and  into  later  Jewish 
writings,  whether  Palestinian  or  Alexandrian.  Another  very  important 
prerequisite  is  the  Graeco-Roman  idea  of  immortality,  the  influence  of 
which  was  both  positive  and  negative  in  early  Christian  literature.  The 
Jewish  and  Greek  literature  is  therefore  examined  with  a  view  of  determin- 
ing the  idea  or  ideas  which  were  held  concerning  the  after-Hfe  before,  or 


2  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

contemporaneous  with,  New  Testament  literature.  The  matter  being 
introductory,  the  results  are  succinctly  stated.  In  every  document  an  effort 
is  constantly  made  to  discover  whether  the  idea  of  the  nature  of  that  which 
is  to  rise,  was  uniformly  held;  or  whether  two,  three,  or  even  more  con- 
ceptions were  current. 

The  beginnings  of  a  belief  in  individual  resurrection  are  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  in  at  least  two  passages.  That  death  is  the  end  of  life  but 
not  the  end  of  existence  was,  however,  the  most  common  position  among 
the  Hebrews.  At  death,  it  was  thought,  the  shades  pass  to  Sheol  where 
they  continue  in  a  semiconscious  state.  Those  who  have  gone  thither 
return  no  more,  and  none  escape  it  Qob  7:9,10;  10:21,22).  In  some  psalms 
there  is  a  trace  of  the  thought  of  eternal  Hfe  in  God  in  the  other  world  (49  =  15) 
but  not  of  hope  for  a  resurrection.  In  Psalm  17:15,  the  phrase,  "when  I 
awake,"  does  not  mean  awake  from  death,  but  from  sleep.  There  is  in 
the  Old  Testament,  for  the  most  part,  nothing  to  look  for  beyond  the  grave 
and  no  hope  of  a  resurrection. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  arose,  in  connection  with  the  messianic  hopes, 
a  beHef  in  the  restoration  of  the  nation,  in  which  the  dead  as  well  as  the 
living  Jews  were  to  participate.  With  this  hope  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead  is  logically  connected.  In  its  simplest  form  it  was  a  revival  of 
Israel.  Many  of  the  religious  conceptions  which  were  later  appropriated 
to  the  individual  were  in  the  first  place  altogether  national.  The  resurrec- 
tion was  no  exception  to  this  general  tendency  in  which  the  larger  unit  of 
the  nation  was  gradually  displaced  by  the  smaller  unit  of  the  individual. 
This  appears  in  those  words  of  Hosea  (6:1,2)  in  which,  in  a  dramatic 
representation  in  the  form  of  a  soliloquy  and  of  a  dialogue  between  Jehovah 
and  the  people,  the  people  acknowledge  their  chastisement  to  be  from  God, 
and  express  the  conviction  that  in  a  short  time  he  will  deliver  them  and  that 
they  shall  live  again  under  his  protection.  The  same  is  true  of  Ezekiel's 
vision  of  the  Valley  of  Dry  Bones  (37:1-14).  The  passage  is  not  a  literal 
prophecy  of  the  resurrection  of  the  individual  persons  of  the  nation, 
dead  or  slain,  but  of  a  resurrection  of  the  nation,  whose  ct)ndition  is  figura- 
tively expressed  and  even  so  avowed  when  it  is  said  that  these  bones  are 
the  whole  house  of  Israel.  The  first  mention  of  an  unmistakable  individual 
resurrection  is  in  Isa.  26:19,  in  which  a  hope  in  a  resurrection  from  Sheol 
is  clearly  expressed  through  a  prayer  for  the  resurrection  of  individuals.' 
The  writer  looks  forward  to  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  in  the  city  of 
strength,  whose  walls  and  bulwarks  are  salvation  and  whose  gates  will  open 
that  the  righteous  nation  may  enter  (26:1,2).     And  since  the  nation  was 

I  Cf.  26:14,  and  see  Dillmann-Kittel,  Der  Prophet  Jesaje,  ad  loc. 


JEWISH   AND    GREEK   LITERATURE  3 

but  few  in  number  the  righteous  dead  shall  rise  and  share  the  blessedness 
of  the  regenerate  nation.  Another  definite  prophecy  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  is  recorded  in  Dan.  12:2.  These  words  refer  to  the  faithful 
and  the  apostates  of  the  Maccabean  revolt  (cf.  11  .•32  ff.).  The  resurrection 
is  to  be  a  resurrection  of  wicked  as  well  as  of  righteous  Israelites,  who,  in 
the  body,  are  presented  before  God  for  judgment. 

Turning  to  the  apocryphal  and  apocalyptic  literature,  first  to  such  as  is 
of  Palestinian  origin,  we  discover  that  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  formed  a 
very  vital  part  of  the  thought  of  later  Judaism.  The  conception  bulks  larger 
and  is  more  fully  developed  than  in  the  Old  Testament,  being  bound  up 
with  the  entire  system  of  eschatology.  Statements  concerning  the  character 
of  the  resurrection  are  often  explicit  and  sometimes  satisfactorily  discussed. 
The  most  significant  as  well  as  the  earliest  of  these  writings  was  the  Book 
of  Enoch  (Ethiopic).  Through  it  the  resurrection  became  commonplace 
in  Jewish  theology;  and  with  the  early  Fathers  it  had  all  the  weight  of  a 
canonical  book,  being  sometimes  cited  as  Scripture.  There  are  at  least 
two,  if  not  four  parts  in  the  Ethiopic  Enoch.  The  so-called  "SimiHtudes" 
(chaps. 37-71),  being  entirely  different  from  the  rest  of  the  book,  are  com- 
monly assigned  to  a  subsequent  author.  The  resurrection  is  thus  very 
variously  conceived  in  consequence  of  these  different  historical  layers;  and 
the  naive  as  well  as  the  symbolic  way  of  presentation  makes  interpretation 
extremely  difficult. 

In  the  first  part  of  Enoch  the  resurrection  is  conceived  to  be  of  all  Israel 
save  one  class  of  sinners  (chap.  22) ;  while  in  a  later  section  the  resurrection 
of  the  righteous  alone  is  attested  (90:33).  The  well-known  "SimiHtudes" 
give  testimony  to  a  resurrection,  either  of  all  mankind  or  of  Israelites  only.^ 
As  to  the  resurrection  act  itself  and  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body 
there,  too,  are  naturally  marked  variations.  In  the  oldest  section  of  the 
book  the  righteous  are  raised  from  Sheol  in  the  body,  to  enjoy  a  life  of 
material  prosperity.  The  messianic  kingdom  is  to  be  established  on  a 
purified  earth  with  Jerusalem  as  its  center  (25:5);  where  its  members  are 
to  eat  of  the  tree  of  life  (25:46),  and  where  nature  is  to  be  prolific  (10: 19). 
The  resurrection  body  of  the  righteous  is  thought  of  as  having  the  same 
organs  and  functions  which  a  mundane  body  possesses  (cf.  25:46;  10:17), 
being  virtually  a  restoration  of  the  former  body.  The  resurrection  of  the 
wicked  is,  however,  differently  conceived.  The  one  class  remain  in  Sheol 
forever;  while  the  members  of  the  other  class  are  simply  transferred  on  the 
great  day  of  judgment  from  Sheol  to  everlasting  punishment  in  Gehenna 

I  See  Schodde,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  139,  for  the  one  view;  R.  H.  Charles,  Book 
of  Enoch,  p.  139,  for  the  other  view. 


4  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

(27:2).  Whether  the  writer  thought  of  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  as 
that  of  disembodied  spirits  (22: 10,11),  or  spirits  united  with  bodies  so  that 
they  could  be  slain  (22 :  13)  and  visible  to  the  risen  righteous  (27 : 3),  we  are 
unable  to  surmise.  Quite  another  conception  of  the  resurrection  is  presented 
in  the  closing  chapters  of  this  Ethiopic  Enoch.  The  center  of  interest  is 
shifted  from  the  material  world  to  the  spiritual,  and  the  messianic  kingdom 
being  of  short  duration  is  no  longer  the  goal  of  the  hopes  of  the  righteous. 
Heaven  is  the  goal  to  which  the  spirits  ascend  after  the  final  judgment 
(93:4).  "The  righteous  dead  will  be  raised  (91:10;  92:3)  as  spirits 
only  (103:3,4)  and  the  portals  of  the  new  heaven  will  be  open  to  them 
(104:2)  and  they  shall  joy  as  the  angels  (94:4)  and  become  companions 
of  the  heavenly  hosts  (94:6)  and  shine  as  the  stars  (94: 2)."'  The  idea  of 
the  resurrection  in  this  section  does  not  involve  the  body,  but  only  the 
spirit.  In  the  "Similitudes,"  however,  the  resurrection  assumes  a  firmer 
form  and  acquires  more  universal  value.  "In  those  days  the  earth  also 
gives  back  those  who  are  treasured  up  within  it  and  Sheol  will  give  back 
that  which  it  owes"  (51 : 1-3).  The  nature  of  this  resurrection  body  is  such 
that  the  risen  one  can  eat  and  sleep  (62:14)  in  the  messianic  kingdom  in 
which  the  righteous  will  live  forever.  The  mention  of  "garments  of  glory 
and  light"  spoken  of  in  connection  with  the  resurrection  body  (even  if  this 
is  the  correct  rendering  of  a  variant  text)  does  not  revoke,  as  some  are  apt 
to  think,  the  fleshly  and  materialistic  conception  of  the  body.  There  are 
thus  in  the  Ethiopic  Enoch  two  ideas  concerning  the  character  of  the  resur- 
rection: (i)  the  resurrection  of  a  material  fleshly  body;  (2)  the  resurrection 
of  the  spirit  only. 

There  is  a  very  gross  description  of  a  bodily  resurrection  in  Second  Mac- 
cabees. This  book  surpasses  all  the  earlier  writings,  not  only  in  the  prom- 
inence which  it  gives  to  the  belief  in  a  resurrection,  but  also  in  the  enlarged 
form  in  which  this  belief  is  presented.  The  resurrection  is  set  forth,  not 
as  a  mere  opinion,  but  as  a  motive  and  a  support  for  martyrdom.  The 
resurrection  of  the  Israelites  is  to  everlasting  life  (7:9),  and  their  bodies 
are  raised  in  e.xactly  the  same  form  in  which  they  were  committed  to  the 
earth.  The  writer  holds  the  plainest  and  most  literal  conception  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  God  will  restore  the  mutilated  bodies  (7:11;  14: 
46) ;  and  even  blood  relationships  will  continue  (7 :  29).  There  is  no  belief 
in  the  doctrine  of  a  natural  resurrection.  Resurrection  comes  through 
the  miraculous  exertion  of  divine  power  (7:14).  The  formation  of  a 
human  being  in  the  womb  is  paralleled  by  its  re-formation  after  death  and 

'  Quoted  from  R.  H.  Charles,  op.  cil.,  p.  265. 


JEWISH   AND    GREEK    LITERATURE  5 

dissolution  (7 :  22,  23).  God's  will  and  ability  to  do  the  former  gives  courage 
to  believe  that  he  will  and  can  do  the  latter.^ 

Turning  to  the  Book  of  Jubilees  we  meet  again  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  spirit  and  the  idea  of  simple  immortality,  already  discerned 
in  the  Ethiopic  Enoch.  There  is  no  mention  of  an  intermediate  abode, 
and  surely  it  cannot  be  Sheol  since  that  is  conceived  of  as  hell  (24: 3).  The 
only  statement  with  reference  to  the  resurrection  is  in  23:31,  in  which  it  is 
asserted  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  enjoy  a  blessed  immortality  after 
death.  Presumably  the  soul  must  enter  at  death  into  its  final  destiny.  A 
resurrection  of  the  spirit  only,  and  not  of  the  body,  is  also  asserted  in  the 
Assumption  of  Moses  (10:3-10).  A  most  striking  view  of  the  resurrection 
is  recorded  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  This  book  is  a  composite  work, 
contemporaneous  with  New  Testament  writers.  Baruch  is  represented 
as  asking  God  what  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  will  be  (chap.  49) ; 
to  which  answer  is  made  that  the  body  will  be  restored  in  exactly  the  same 
form  in  which  it  was  buried,  with  all  the  defects  and  deformities,  so  that 
there  may  be  a  common  recognition  after  death  (chap,  50).  After  such 
recognition  the  body  of  the  righteous  will  be  transformed  and  will  assume 
a  more  spiritual  nature.  There  will  be  a  series  of  successive  changes  until 
the  body  is  adjusted  to  the  new  environment  (51 : 3).  The  body,  however, 
will  not  be  so  attenuated  as  to  become  a  nonentity;  it  will  remain  a  body, 
even  though  it  is  spiritually  apprehended.  Thus  in  almost  the  same 
breath  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  presents  a  material  as  well  as  a  spiritual 
conception  of  the  risen  body." 

The  nature  of  the  resurrection  is,  therefore,  variously  conceived  of  in 
Palestinian- Jewish  literature.  Three  conceptions  were  current:  (i)  a 
bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense,  clearly  indicated  (Eth,  En.)  and 
taught  in  the  most  hteral  terms  (II  Mace. ;  Apoc.  Bar.) ;  (2)  a  resurrection 
of  the  spirit  only,  or  an  incorporeal  immortality  after  judgment  (Eth.  En. ; 
Jub. ;  Ass.  Mos.) ;  (3)  a  resurrection  of  a  transformed  body,  different  from 
the  mundane  body  (Apoc.  Bar.). 

A  preliminary  resume  of  the  Greek  doctrine  of  the  future  life  is  a  very 
important  prerequisite  to  the  interpretation  and  presentation  of  the  idea 
of  the  resurrection  in  the  ante-Nicene  period.     Early  Christianity,  as  is 

1  In  II  Mace,  dvaffracris  occurs  for  the  first  time  in  the  Greek  Bible  in  the  sense 
of  resurrection. 

2  Though  this  book  runs  somewhat  parallel  to  Paul  (I  Cor.  15:35-50),  it  cannot 
be  declared  that  Paul  was  influenced  by  it,  since  the  main  part  of  the  book  and  the 
section  referred  to  were  written  after  A.  D.  70.  Withal  the  position  of  Baruch  is 
fundamentally  different  from  that  of  Paul. 


6  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

well  known,  was  developed  in  the  environment  of  Greek  life  and  thought. 
There  is  thus  an  a-priori  probability  that  in  the  formation  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  Greek  influences  were  operative.  This  influence  must 
have  been  both  conscious  and  unconscious,  direct  and  indirect,  positive  and 
negative.  At  the  time  of  the  Christian  era  there  were  still  current  among 
the  Greeks  and  the  Romans  the  popular  beliefs  in  the  Homeric  conceptions 
and  the  ancient  mythologies.  The  sepulchral  inscriptions  give  conclusive 
evidence  of  this  fact.  And  since  Homer  was  the  bible  of  the  Greeks,  and 
since  the  philosophies  were  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  people  as  a  whole, 
it  is  evident  that  this  must  have  been  the  case.  Now  the  Homeric  doctrine 
of  the  after-life  is  inharmonious  and  irreconcilable  at  many  places.  In 
the  main,  however,  it  presents  us  with  a  doctrine  which  seems  similar 
to  the  ancient  beliefs  of  the  Hebrews.  The  Homeric  poems  teach  that 
death  is  not  the  end  of  man,  but  that  something  survives.  This  something 
is  not  a  full,  real  man,  but  a  kind  of  "an  attenuated  edition  of  man." 
The  part  which  survives  death  is  called  the  soul  ("Auxv))  '^^t  it  is  entirely 
different  from  what  we  understand  as  soul.  It  has  no  psychological  rela- 
tion with  the  rest  of  man,  even  while  it  is  in  the  body.  At  death  it  departs 
to  Hades,  where  it  continues  without  consciousness  (//.  xxiii.  103,  104), 
and  without  a  possibility  of  return  {II.  xxiii.  75,  76).  Immortality  was 
vouchsafed  only  to  a  few  favorites  of  the  gods,  who  were  bodily  translated 
to  the  Elysian  fields. 

The  philosophic  view  of  the  future  hfe  is,  on  the  other  hand,  of  greater 
moment  and  more  pertinent  than  the  popular  thought.  There  are  constant 
allusions  in  Christian  writings  to  the  philosophical  views  and  besides,  many 
of  the  early  Christian  writers  were  at  one  time  philosophers  and  were  trained 
in  the  philosophic  systems.  The  moral  philosophies  were  the  religion  of 
most  of  the  cultivated  people.  The  foremost  of  philosophers  was  Plato — 
decidedly  so  on  the  subject  of  the  after-life.  He  established  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  life  on  grounds  of  reason,  independent  of  tradition.  Still  he 
had  his  predecessors  who  were  controlled  by  a  higher  idea  of  the  after-life 
than  the  Homeric  conception.  The  Eleusinian  and  Orphic  mysteries, 
Pythagoras,  and  Pindar  contributed  the  idea  that  the  soul  which  survives 
in  the  other  world  is  soul  itself,  and  no  attenuated  dead  image;  that  the 
transmigration  of  souls  is  necessary;  and  that  the  body  is  a  hindrance  to 
the  soul.' 

Plato  teaches  very  distinctly  the  idea  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  to 
which  is  attached  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  and  the  dogma  of  metempsy- 
chosis.    The  soul  is  incarnated,  and  after  the  death  of  the  body  a  judgment 

»  t6  ffQua  (TTJfM  in  the  Orphic  mysteries;  see  Plato,  Cralylus,  400. 


JEWISH    AND    GREEK    LITERATURE  7 

awaits  it  in  an  intermediate  state  where  penance  and  discipline  and  puri- 
fication are  possible.  There  it  remains  for  a  thousand  years,  after  which 
it  is  again  reincarnated;  and  so  continuing  to  persist  in  successive  bodies 
it  is  finally  delivered  from  the  body  and  departs  into  the  realm  of  pure 
being.  This  goal  is,  however,  reached  only  by  those  who  have  purified 
themselves  by  philosophy  and  have  freed  themselves  from  every  taint  of 
the  body.  The  idea  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body  is  contrary  to  Platonic 
principles.  The  entire  scheme  is  to  get  rid  of  the  body  and  all  of  its  func- 
tions, not  to  save  it.  "The  soul  is  divine,  immortal,  intelligible,  uniform, 
indissoluble,  unchangeable,"  but  "the  body  is  mortal"  (Pkaedo,  80);  the 
body  is  the  source  of  endless  trouble,  and  it  hinders  the  soul  from  the 
acquisition  of  knowledge  (66);  purity  is  attained  only  by  the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  the  body  (67);  the  body  is  an  impediment,  a  hindrance, 
and  the  prison  of  the  soul;  heaven  is  reached  only  in  a  bodiless  condition, 
in  which  the  soul  is  free  from  every  taint  of  the  body.  The  doctrine  of 
immortality  had  reached  its  highest  point  in  Plato,  and  all  subsequent 
writers  who  dealt  with  the  future  life  followed  in  his  footsteps.  There  is 
one  variation,  however,  and  it  is  utilized  by  the  Fathers,  viz.,  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Stoics,  who  taught  that  the  soul  is  corporeal  and  that  it  survives 
until  the  world's  periodic  conflagration.  They  taught  that  the  entire 
universe  is  in  a  continuous  flux,  that  periodically  everything  is  reabsorbed 
into  Deity,  and  that  the  soul  subsists  until  the  next  reabsorption  and 
conflagration. 

Turning  to  the  Romans  we  find  that  there  is  very  little  that  is  Roman 
which  is  not  also  Greek.  There  are  only  two  writers  who  seriously  deal 
with  the  after-life — Cicero  and  Virgil.  Both  of  these  are  used  in  a  few  of 
the  Latin  Fathers.  Cicero  restates  the  Platonic  doctrine,  concluding 
that  a  soul  will  either  have  a  hap])y  future  or  will  perish  with  the  body 
{Tusc.  Disp.  I,  38).  Virgil  gives  both  the  popular  view  and  also  his  own 
view,  the  latter  being  a  reflection  of  the  Platonic  ideas  of  an  antagonism 
between  body  and  soul  (Aeneid  vi,  725  ff.).  Thus  Graeco-Roman  thought 
was  confined  to  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  consistently  so;  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  was  logically  excluded,  inasmuch  as  flesh  and 
matter  were  conceived  of  as  morally  weak. 

In  the  Alexandrian  Jewish  literature,  there  is  a  repetition  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  In  Alexandria,  where  the  Jewish 
and  Greek  ideas  were  welded  together,  the  conception  of  the  after-life 
fell  on  the  Greek  rather  than  on  the  Jewish  side.  Nowhere  is  there  an 
attestation  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
the  doctrine  of  an  individual  immortality  beyond  the  grave  is  set  forth 


8  IDEA    OF    RESURRECTION    IN    ANTENICENE    PERIOD 

(2:23;  8:17;  15:3).  The  psychology  of  the  author  is  dualistic.  The  soul 
of  man  is  pre-existent,  and  the  body  is  treated  as  a  mere  receptacle  (8 :  20) ; 
the  body  is  only  an  "earthly  tabernacle"  for  the  soul  (9:15);  the  body  falls 
to  the  dust  and  never  rises.  This  idea  is  brought  out  still  more  clearly 
in  Philo,  the  classic  example  of  Jewish  Alexandrian  theology.  A  personal 
immortality  is  clearly  recognized;  while  a  resurrection  of  the  body  and  a 
judgment  and  an  intermediate  abode  find  no  place.  At  death  the  soul 
enters  into  its  final  state,  which  at  once  sets  aside  the  idea  of  a  resurrection. 
His  conception  of  matter,  likewise,  repudiates  any  conception  of  a  bodily 
resurrection.  Thus  it  is  stated  that  the  body  is  made  out  of  matter  and 
matter  is  incurably  evil;  that  life  in  the  body  is  death  and  death  real  life; 
that  the  body  is  the  "utterly  polluted  prison"  of  the  soul  {De  Migr.  Abr., 
II) ;  that  it  is  the  corpse  which  the  soul  drags  with  it,  the  clog  which  hinders 
the  spirit.  The  writer  of  Fourth  Maccabees,  "a  dilettante  in  philosophies," 
believing  only  in  a  blessed  immortality  of  the  soul,  thrusts  aside  any  inti- 
mation of  a  resurrection  of  the  body  (13:16;  15:2;  18:23).  This  is  the  more 
remarkable  since  the  discourse  is  founded  on  II  Mace,  which  takes  a  very 
literal  view  of  the  resurrection.  The  Slavonic  Enoch,  or  the  Book  of  the 
Secrets  of  Enoch,  standing  in  a  class  by  itself,  uses  a  collocation  of  words 
which  do  not  lend  themselves  to  definite  interpretation  (22:8-10). 

Thus  Hellenistic  Judaism  consistently  held  to  a  conception  of  mere 
personal  immortality,  and  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  positive  effect  of 
Greek  thought  on  the  Jewish  idea  of  the  resurrection.  This  conception 
was  confined  almost  exclusively  to  Alexandria,  while  the  conception  of  the 
rehabilitation  of  the  body  was  indigenous  to  Palestinian  soil.  This 
latter — the  restoration  of  the  former  body — had  gained  wide  currency  and 
was  a  common  property  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  common  people,  as  is 
evident  from  Josephus,  the  New  Testament,  and  the  Talmud.  Indeed, 
it  was  the  atmosphere  in  which  the  Christian  idea  of  the  resurrection 
was  born. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

In  entering  upon  a  study  of  the  New  Testament  we  are  mainly  inter- 
ested to  know  whether  there  is  a  single  view  of  the  nature  of  the  resurrection 
or  whether  testimony  is  given  to  two  or  even  three  conceptions.  Inasmuch 
as  we  found  through  a  genetic  study  of  the  literature  of  Judaism  that  there 
were  current,  at  least,  three  possible  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  resur- 
rection, it  is  meet  to  inquire  whether  there  is  variation  of  idea  in  the  New 
Testament  books  also,  or  uniformity.  A  careful  study  of  Jesus,  of  Paul, 
and  of  the  writers  of  the  four  gospels  furnishes  us  with  the  desired  informa- 
tion. In  general,  Jesus  says  very  little— less  perhaps  than  we  should  have 
expected— on  the  nature  of  the  resurrection.  However,  the  resurrection  is 
affirmed  in  his  reply  to  the  cavil  of  the  Sadducees,  and  the  account  is  given 
by  the  three  Synoptists  (Mark  12:18-27  and  parallels).  That  Mark 
contains  the  earlier  tradition  is  evident,  not  merely  from  the  general  con- 
clusion to  which  scholarship  has  come  on  the  Synoptic  problem  as  a  whole, 
but  also  from  the  abrupt  and  uncouth  form  in  which  this  Markan  narrative 
is  cast.  The  Sadducees  present  what  was  seemingly  an  imaginary  case, 
and  no  doubt  one  of  their  standing  questions— of  the  effect  of  levirate 
marriage  on  the  after-life.  To  this  question  Jesus  makes  answer;  and  in 
his  answer  there  are  three  aspects  which  bear,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
on  the  subject. 

The  purport  of  the  question  of  the  Sadducees  and  the  import  of  Jesus' 
answer  give  an  implicit  testimony.  Jesus  does  not  answer  the  question  put 
to  him,  but  deals  with  the  presumption  out  of  which  the  question  sprang. 
Was  that  presumption  the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  or  rather 
the  denial  of  the  persistence  of  life  after  death  ?  If  only  the  former,  then  the 
purpose  of  the  argument  of  Jesus  was  simply  to  indicate  to  the  Sadducees 
that  there  is  a  resurrection  of  the  body  in  the  material  sense.  If,  however, 
the  presumption  of  the  question  was  a  denial  of  a  spiritual  personality  after 
death,  rather  than  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  then  the  answer  of  Jesus  has 
pertinency  only  if  directed  to  this  denial.  Now  a  knowledge  of  the  tenets 
of  the  Sadducees,  apart  from  our  immediate  passage,  reveals  the  fact  that 
they  denied  not  merely  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  more  fundamen- 
tally the  soul's  immortality.  Josephus'  representation  is  undoubtedly  correct 
when  he  says  that  they  maintain  that  the  soul  perishes  with  the  body 

9 


lO  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

(Ant.,  xviii.  i ;  War,  ii.  8: 14).  This  is  also  in  harmony  with  Acts  23:8,  in 
which  it  is  asserted  that  they  deny  a  world  of  supermundane  spirits.  And 
from  the  very  history  of  the  Sadducees  one  infers  that  they  were  wholly 
concerned  with  materiaUstic  interests,  so  that  spiritual  realities  had  Httle 
meaning  for  them.  From  this  standpoint  it  is  therefore  evident  that 
Jesus  must  have  set  himself  to  the  task  ])rimarily  of  showing  the  continuity 
of  life,  rather  than  of  arguing  the  resurrection  of  a  material  body. 

After  all,  Jesus  seems  to  give  some  hint  as  to  the  nature  of  the  resurrec- 
tion in  this  passage  when  he  says  that  in  the  resurrection  "they  neither 
marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage;  but  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven."  It  is 
evident  from  this  that  the  future  life  is  not  to  be  one  of  sense-life,  in  which 
men  exist  with  the  same  forms  of  intercourse  occasioned  by  man's  sensuous 
nature.  Jesus  repudiates  very  strongly  the  idea  of  the  earthly  sensuous 
character  of  the  future  Ufe.  However,  the  exact  nature  of  the  future  exist- 
ence of  men  is  not,  by  this  expression,  definitely  indicated.  In  the  analogy 
of  the  heavenly  state  of  angels  (eicriv  ws  dyyeAot  iv  rots  ovpavots)  there 
is  something  a  little  more  tangible,  but  still  nothing  absolutely  definite. 
Angels,  Hke  demons  and  spirits,  arc  usually  conceived  of  as  immaterial 
beings,  having  a  self-conscious,  self-directing  individuality.  Jesus  prob- 
ably intended  the  simile  to  be  taken  at  its  full  value.  If  so,  he  intended  to 
give  a  distinctly  spiritual  meaning  to  the  resurrection.  Furthermore,  it 
is  worth  noticing  that  this  reply  of  Jesus  tallies  with  the  description  in  the 
latter  part  of  Ethiopic  Enoch,  where  there  is  to  be  a  resurrection,  but  a 
resurrection  of  the  spirit  alone;  in  which  the  risen  righteous  are  to  rejoice 
"as  the  angels  of  heaven"  (104:4),  being  companions  of  the  "heavenly 
hosts"  (104:6).  Hence  it  is  most  probable  that  Jesus  intended  to  deny 
the  physical  and  affirm  only  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  after-life. 

The  argument  which  Jesus  draws  from  Scripture,  in  his  answer,  has 
reference  only  to  a  spiritual  resumption  of  the  activities  of  life  after  death 
(Mark  1 2 :  26,  27).  Jesus  shows  conclusively  that  the  view  of  the  Sadducees 
is  inconsistent  with  the  very  Scripture  to  which  they  hold.  If  God,  he  argues, 
is  really  the  God  of  the  patriarchs,  then  they  are  in  fellowship  with  him, 
and  that  fellowship  cannot  be  broken  by  death;  it  is  continuous,  and  con- 
sequently life  must  be  continuous.  Commentators  often  have  made  the 
argument  to  hinge  on  the  use  of  the  present  instead  of  the  past  tense  in  the 
words,  "I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob,"  thereby  showing  that  the  patriarchs  who  were  buried  centuries 
before  Moses  must  still  have  been  living  when  God  spoke  these  words  to  him. 
But  the  argument  for  the  sun'ival  of  human  personality  strikes  deeper, 
for  it  is  inferred  from  the  nature  of  God  himself.     Those  who  are  morally 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  II 

and  religiously  bound  up  with  him  now  are  in  a  life-giving  and  eternal 
fellowship  with  him ;  he  who  lives  for  God  and  with  God  lives  forever.  In 
this  aspect  of  Jesus'  answer  to  the  Sadducees  there  is  no  support  of  the  idea 
of  a  restitution  of  the  body;  but  only  of  a  survival  of  the  spirit  after  death  and 
of  a  blessed  fellowship  with  God.  The  term  "resurrection"  has  acquired, 
in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  the  content  of  immortality.  No  room  is  even  left 
for  an  awakening  of  the  soul  from  an  intermediate  abode  and  its  transference 
therefrom  to  another  place,  where  some  kind  of  a  body  will  be  given  to  it. 
Jesus  tacitly  assumed  that  the  resurrection  begins  with  death  and  that  the 
patriarchs  were  living  the  resurrection  life  fully  and  completely.  There  is 
no  room  for  a  point  of  time  in  the  history  of  the  after-life  when  a  soul  will 
be  united  with  its  former  body  and  live  a  completer  Hfe. 

The  other  teachings  of  Jesus  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  answer  to 
the  Sadducees.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  a  stratum  coming  probably  from 
the  hand  of  John  himself,^  is  an  expression  which  is  in  absolute  harmony 
with  the  Synoptists.  Jesus  says  to  Mary  who  had  the  current  conception 
of  the  resurrection,  "I  am  the  resurrection,  and  the  life:  he  that  believeth  on 
me,  though  he  die,  yet  shall  he  hve;  and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  on 
me  shall  never  die"  (John  ii :  25,  26) :  meaning  thereby  that  he  is  the  source 
and  embodiment  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  he  who  gives  himself  up 
to  him  will  survive  after  death.  The  argument  is  parallel  to  that  of  the 
Synoptics — the  only  change  being  a  substitution  of  Jesus  for  God.  In  the 
Synoptics,  Jesus  says  in  substance.  He  who  lives  in  God  and  for  God  lives 
forever;  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  he  says,  He  who  lives  in  me  and  for  me  lives 
forever.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  a  few  references,  not  directly  to  the 
resurrection,  but  to  some  phase  of  the  after-life  which  seem  to  imply  a  bodily 
resurrection;  but  a  critical  study  of  each  passage  invariably  leads  to  the 
foregone  conclusion.  Jesus  spoke  of  eating  and  drinking  in  the  future 
kingdom  of  God  (Luke  13:29);  but  the  terms  are  used  figuratively  "to 
express  a  blissful  enjoyment  in  fellowship  with  others."  Our  Lord's  words 
about  Lazarus  in  Abraham's  bosom  and  the  rich  man  in  Hades  occur  in 
a  parable,  and,  being  incidental  rather  than  vital  to  the  central  purpose  of 
the  parable,  cannot  be  charged  with  doctrinal  meaning  (Luke  16:19-31). 
The  apocalyptic  passages  attributed  to  Jesus  are  colored  by  ideas  which 
were  current  and  operative  during  the  period  of  gospel-making.  The 
"Great  Apocalypse"  (Mark,  chap.  13  and  parallels)  is  of  a  composite 
character  and  presents  conflicting  views.  It  may  safely  be  assumed  that 
this  apocalypse  was  not  spoken  by  Christ  in  the  form  in  which  it  appears  in 
our  present  gospels;  but  that  it  is  a  Christian  adaptation  of  an  original 

1  See  Wendt,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  John,  153-58. 


12  IDEA   OF    RESURRECTION    IN    ANTENICENE    PERIOD 

Jewish  work  'WTitten  during  the  trouble  preceding  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
or  a  report  of  Jesus'  words  colored  by  Jewish  ideas.'  Furthermore,  what 
Jesus  taught  concerning  the  future  state  of  men,  he  also  predicted  concerning 
himself.  To  rise  again  after  three  days  was  a  Hebraistic  way  of  saying  in 
a  short  time  (cf.  Hos.  6:2);  and  by  this  expression  Jesus  simply  conveyed 
the  idea  that  immediately  after  his  death  he  would  continue  to  live  as  a 
self-directing  personality.  In  short,  Jesus  read  into  the  Jewish  resurrection 
— a  term  which  was  forced  upon  his  lips — nothing  more  than  the  survival 
and  continuance  of  human  personality  on  its  spiritual  side. 

In  turning  from  the  teachings  of  Jesus  to  the  writings  of  Paul,  we  are 
confronted  with  another  conception  of  the  resurrection,  which  is  seemingly 
different — though  not  vitally  so — from  that  of  Jesus.  Few  conceptions 
received  such  elaborate  treatment  at  the  hands  of  Paul  as  that  of  the  resur- 
rection. His  whole  interest  in  eschatology  is  centered  in  the  resurrection. 
Yet  in  spite  of  all  this  elaboration  and  emphasis,  there  is  perhaps  no  province 
in  which  more  room  is  left  for  the  raising  of  perplexing  questions.  The 
two  classic  passages  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  are  I  Cor.,  chap.  15 
and  II  Cor.,  chap.  5;  in  the  former  of  these  the  subject  is  systematically 
discussed.  In  Corinth  the  resurrection  was  questioned  and  denied  by  some 
Christians.  The  opposition  to  the  idea  was  undoubtedly  due  to  a  Hellen- 
istic dualism  indigenous  to  Corinth  itself.  The  portrayal  in  Acts  of  the 
opposition  to  the  resurrection  encountered  at  Athens  is  also  in  a  measure 
applicable  to  Corinth.  The  Corinthians  must  have  misconceived  the 
nature  of  the  resurrection  body,  and  presumably  overemphasized  the  mate- 
rialistic conception,  which  caused  certain  ones  to  deny  it  altogether. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus,  in  the  thought  of  Paul,  was  significant  in  its 
relation  both  to  justification  and  to  the  resurrection  of  believers.  For  him 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  the  miracle  par  excellence,  and  the  proof  of 
his  divine  mission.  If  Christ,  he  says,  is  not  raised  then  all  faith  is  in  vain 
and  we  are  still  in  our  sins;  Christ  was  raised  for  our  justification  (I  Cor. 
15:16-18).  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  also  a  sure  pledge  of  our  own 
resurrection;  and  the  hope  of  our  resurrection  rests  on  the  assured  fact  of 
Christ's  resurrection.  The  apostle  draws  a  close  analogy  between  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  and  that  of  men.  The  resurrection  of  both  is  either 
affirmed  or  denied,  so  that  what  is  true  of  the  one  must  also  be  true  of  the 
other.  If  men  do  not  rise  then  Christ  did  not  rise,  and  vice  versa.  There 
is  also  no  difference  between  the  resurrection  bodies  of  either,  save  that 
Jesus  is  the  first-fruit.     Inasmuch  as  the  first-fruit  is  like  the  harvest,  it 

'  This  view  has  the  support  of  such  authorities  as  Weizsiicker,  Wendi,  H.  J.  Holtz- 
mann,  Baldensperger,  Bousset,  Charles,  and  others. 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  1 3 

thus  follows  that  whatever  Paul  conceived  to  be  the  nature  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  one,  he  must  also  have  held  with  reference  to  the  other. 

The  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  of  Jesus  is  not  explicitly  described, 
nevertheless  its  nature  can  easily  be  inferred.  The  empty  tomb  was  to 
Paul  a  secondary  matter  and  of  second-hand  information,  if,  indeed,  he 
knew  of  it  at  all.  Christ  had  appeared  to  him  in  his  risen  form  and  that 
appearance  gave  him  the  conception  which  he  expressed  in  the  phrase  a 
"spiritual  body."  In  the  catalogue  of  appearances  (I  Cor.  15:1-15)  there 
is  nothing  to  give  one  the  impression  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  a 
revivification  of  his  former  body;  but  an  opposite  impression  is  rather 
formed.  Paul  says  nothing  of  a  body  which  could  be  touched  and  handled, 
and  which  bore  the  marks  of  a  crucifixion.  He  is  silent  with  reference  to  all 
this,  not  because  he  does  not  like  to  think  about  it,  but  because  he  never 
saw  anything  of  the  kind.  The  risen  Jesus  which  he  saw  was  not  clothed 
in  his  former  earthly  body.  And,  in  addition,  Paul's  language  describing 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  does  not  contain  the  phrase  "resurrection  of  the 
body,"  but  the  expression  "resurrection  of  the  dead,"  meaning  thereby 
a  resurrection  from  the  under-world. 

Paul's  conception  of  the  resurrection  body  is  brought  out  more  com- 
prehensively, however,  in  his  general  treatment  of  the  future  resurrection 
of  men.  We  are  interested  to  know  what  he  thought  was  both  the  nature 
and  the  origin  of  this  resurrection  body.  The  two  ideas  are  inseparable  and 
not  systematically  stated,  and  accordingly  there  has  been  room  for  various 
and  conflicting  opinions.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  obvious  that  he  teaches 
that  the  resurrection  body  is  to  be  different  from  this  present  earthly  body. 
The  material  substance  of  the  mundane  hfe  can  have  no  place  in  the  life 
beyond  the  grave.  It  is  distinctly  stated  that  "flesh  and  blood  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God"  (I  Cor.  15:50).  The  word  "flesh"  is  not 
used  in  an  ethical  sense;  but,  in  connection  with  the  word  "blood,"  refers 
to  an  animal  body  (cf.  also  I  Cor.  15:39).  As  we  are  we  cannot  inherit 
eternal  life;  since  it  is  not  the  material  properties  of  our  body  which  endure 
forever;  for  they  are  subject  to  corruption  and  dissolution.  In  contrast 
with  the  present  body  the  resurrection  body  is  "spiritual,"  "heavenly," 
"eternal,"  and  "not  made  with  hands."  The  apostle  recognizes  variations 
and  different  forms  of  bodily  life.  "All  flesh  is  not  the  same  flesh;  but 
there  is  one  flesh  of  men,  and  another  flesh  of  beasts,  and  another  of  birds, 
and  another  of  fishes"  (I  Cor.  15:39).  Then  he  continues  by  asserting 
that  similar  variations  run  through  the  heavenly  bodies.  In  addition  those 
living  at  the  Parousia  will  meet  the  Lord,  not  with  their  earthly  bodies, 
but  with  bodies  that  have  been  changed  (I  Thess.  4:17;  I  Cor.  15:51-54; 
II  Cor.  5:4). 


14  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

Paul's  characteristic  way  of  defining  the  future  state  is  by  the  term 
"  spiritual  body "  (o-a)/u.a  TTi/ev/iaTtKov) ;  and  this  is  original  with  him.  Con- 
sequently in  finding  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  no  appeal  can  be  made 
to  classical  or  pre-Pauline  literature,  but  reliance  must  be  placed  solely  on 
Paul  himself.  On  the  surface,  the  expression  seems  self -contradictory; 
which  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  term  are  crystallized  two  distinct 
ideas.  It  seems  evident  that  the  expression  "spiritual  body"  has  reference 
to  an  organism  controlled  by  the  Spirit  or  spirit — the  two  ideas  being 
interchangeable — and  also  that  the  organism  thus  controlled  is  other  than 
pure  spirit.  In  contrast  with  the  psychical  body  which  is  animated  by  the 
sensuous  and  perishable  life  as  its  determining  element,  the  spiritual  body 
will  be  animated  by  the  supersensuous  and  imperishable  life  which  the 
Spirit  imparts  and  sustains. 

This  spiritual  or  resurrection  body,  he  asserts,  does  not  develop  out  of 
the  former  mundane  body,  save  perhaps  in  the  case  of  those  still  living 
at  the  Parousia  (cf.  I  Cor.  15 :  51-54;  II  Cor.  5:4).  The  analogy  of  the  seed 
and  the  plant  is  purely  analogical,  and  must  not  be  unduly  pressed.  As  a 
scientific  fact  seed  and  plant  stand  in  a  genetic  relationship.  The  seed — 
for  in  it  is  the  germ  of  life — when  placed  in  its  proper  environment  produces 
the  plant.  But  Paul  did  not  use  this  illustration  to  set  forth  a  principle  of 
spiritual  biology.  He  simply  reflects  the  Hebrew  idea  respecting  the  sov- 
ereign power  of  God.  "God  giveth  it  a  body  according  as  he  willeth" 
(KaOios  rjdeXrjcrev).  "The  aorist  tense  denotes  the  final  act  of  God's  will 
determining  the  constitution  of  nature."  All  changes  in  history  and  life* 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  were  the  direct  work  of  God,  apart  from  second- 
ary causes.  No  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the  new  body  can  be  found  in 
this  analogy.  Paul  did  not  teach  that  there  is  a  seed  in  the  old  body,  or  the 
old  body  is  itself  the  seed,  out  of  which  the  new  body  genetically  grows  and 
develops;  neither  did  he  teach  the  metamorphosis  of  an  earthly  body  into  a 
heavenly. 

The  real  origin  of  the  resurrection  body  is  attributed  to  the  direct  act 
of  God,  who  "willeth"  to  give  each  soul  a  body  at  the  time  of  the  Parousia. 
In  II  Cor.  5:1-11  it  is  clearly  indicated  that  when  death  ensues  the  souls 
will  be  left  "naked,"  that  is,  bodiless;  but  that  ])r()lcptically  they  already 
possess  a  body  in  heaven — "a  house  not  made  with  hands" — with  which 
they  will  be  "clothed  upon"  on  the  resurrection  day.*  While  the  origin 
of  the  resurrection  body  is  usually  referred  to  the  fiat  of  God,  it  is  also 

'  There  are  some  scholars  (c.  g.,  Reuss,  Holtzniann,  Pflcidcrcr,  Cone,  Clemen, 
Schmiedel,  etc.)  who  interpret  this  passage  quite  differently,  asserting  that,  in  the 
interval  between  I  and  II  Cor.,  Paul  changed  his  view  on  the  resurrection. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  1 5 

sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  which  dwells  in  the  believer 
which  Spirit  gathers  to  itself  such  elements  that  it  will  finally  form  a  new 
organism.  In  other  words,  the  new  life  in  the  believer  will  have  the  power 
to  create  and  assimilate  an  organism  conforming  to  the  new  conditions. 
It  seems  that  when  Paul  is  controlled  by  the  ethical,  rather  than  the  eschato- 
logical,  side  he  prefers  to  speak  of  the  genesis  of  the  spiritual  body  in  this 
way  (cf.  also  Rom.  8:ii).' 

Since  this  spiritual  body,  as  we  have  seen,  is  neither  this  present  mundane 
form,  nor  a  metamorphosis  or  volatilization  of  it,  but  a  new  organism 
imparted  either  indirectly  by  the  new  life  working  in  the  believer,  or  directly 
by  God,  it  yet  remains  to  ask  what  exactly  is  the  nature  of  this  organism. 
It  is,  after  all,  a  body,  an  organism,  and  not  equivalent  merely  to  a  spirit. 
It  is  perfectly  adapted  to  the  spirit's  activity  under  the  new  conditions.  It 
is  ethereal,  subtle,  sublimated,  having,  probably,  some  of  the  properties 
of  what  we  call  matter.  We  may  not  have  a  term  in  our  scientific  nomen- 
clature of  things  material  and  things  spiritual  whereby  we  can  designate 
in  exact  terms  the  nature  of  this  resurrection  body  which  Paul  chooses  to 
call  a  "spiritual  body." 

Does  Paul's  conception  differ  from  that  of  Jesus  ?  It  does,  no  doubt, 
in  appearance  and  at  first  sight,  but  not  in  reality.  There  is  really  no 
vital  difference  between  the  two  conceptions.  Jesus  said  nothing  of  a 
spiritual  body  which  is  to  be  given  at  some  time  to  the  soul,  or  which  the 
new  life  creates  for  itself;  although  this  may  not  be  altogether  excluded 
from  his  thought.  Both,  however,  agree  in  this,  that  they  put  the  emphasis 
on  the  continuity  of  life  on  its  spiritual  side.  Resurrection  to  both  meant, 
not  the  rehabilitation  of  the  flesh,  but  the  permanent  release  from  it. 

In  turning  to  the  Gospel  writers  we  meet  another  idea  of  the  resurrection. 
In  general,  they  portray  a  resurrection  of  the  body  in  which  the  former 
substance  is  reanimated  and  the  former  life  lived.  This  seems  to  be  the 
prevaiUng  conception  of  the  risen  body  of  Jesus  as  they  describe  it,  although 
it  is  by  no  means  consistently  held.  In  fact,  some  resurrection  narra- 
tives, particularly  those  imbedded  in  the  earliest  strata,  imply  a  spiritual 
body  such  as  Paul  has  described;  while  others,  especially  those  appearing 
in  the  later  gospels,  set  forth  in  bold  relief  a  material  conception  of  the 
risen  body;  and,  indeed,  in  some  of  the  accounts  the  material  and  the 
spiritual  conceptions  overlap. 

Thus  in  the  lost  conclusion  of  Mark' — preserved  in  Matt.  28:8-10, 

I  Kennedy,  Charles,  and  others  interpret  also  I  Cor.  15:42-49  in  accordance  with 
this  view. 

*  For  a  discussion  of  this,  see  E.  J.  Goodspeed,  "The  Lost  Conclusion  of  Mark," 
American  Journal  of  Theology,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  484-90  (1905). 


1 6  IDEA   OF  RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

16-19 — there  is  described  a  resurrection  appearance  of  a  body  which  is 
purely  spiritual.  The  disciples,  it  is  narrated,  were  gathered  together  on 
a  mount,  and  all  at  once  Jesus  appeared  and  spoke  to  them.  Like  Paul's, 
this  description  of  the  risen  Christ  is  characterized  by  an  absence  of  the 
grotesque  and  the  materialistic  conceptions  of  eating  and  handling.  On 
the  other  hand,  an  unmistakable  bodily  presence  of  Jesus  is  manifested  in 
the  later  traditions,  especially  that  which  has  been  preserved  in  Luke  and 
John.  Here  the  risen  Jesus  is  represented  as  sitting  down  to  meat,  taking 
bread  and  blessing  it,  and  giving  it  to  his  disciples.  It  is  even  stated  that 
he  took  a  piece  of  broiled  fish  and  ate  it  in  their  presence  (Luke  24:42,  43). 
The  material  and  fleshly  conception  of  the  risen  Lord  comes  out  still  more 
strikingly  in  the  fact  that  he  showed  the  prints  in  his  hands  and  feet,  and 
that  he  bade  his  disciples  handle  and  touch  him  (Luke  24:39,  40;  John 
20: 27).  The  risen  Jesus,  to  indicate  that  his  appearance  was  in  his  former 
body,  is  represented  as  saying:  "Handle  me  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not 
flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  behold  me  having  "  (Luke  24 :  39) .  In  some  of  the  nar- 
ratives even  a  third  phenomenon  presents  itself.  Here  Jesus  instantaneously 
transports  himself  from  place  to  place,  passes  through  closed  doors,  is 
impalpable,  and  yet,  withal,  displays  his  wounds  and  challenges  those  present 
to  touch  him  (John  20:19-23,  26-29).  Two  ill-according  elements  are 
manifestly  present — the  one  predicating  a  material  organism,  the  other  a 
spiritual.  Such  incongruity  is  undoubtedly  the  result  of  two  traditions, 
or  two  conceptions  of  the  risen  body,  which  were  not,  and,  in  fact,  could 
not  be,  reconciled.  Hence  the  overlapping  of  the  two  ideas — the  one  repre- 
sented in  its  purity  by  Paul,  and  the  other  seen  in  its  final  development  in 
the  extra -canonical  gospels.  The  appendix  to  the  Gospel  of  John  portrays 
with  a  great  deal  more  consistency  a  material  body  than  the  rest  of  the 
gospel.  Jesus  is  described  as  building  a  fire,  preparing  a  meal,  and  sitting 
down  to  eat  with  his  disciples  (John  21  :i-i4). 

In  the  narrative  of  the  empty  sepulcher  the  conception  of  a  reinstate- 
ment, if  not  a  resuscitation,  of  the  former  body  is  obvious.  The  tomb  is 
found  emj)ty  on  the  morning  of  the  third  day,  the  stone  is  rolled  away,  and 
an  angel  or  angels  announce  that  Christ  is  no  longer  in  the  grave  but  risen. 
Inharmonious  as  it  is,  even  Mark  and  Matthew,  who  suggest  only  a  spirit- 
ual body  in  the  appearances,  record  the  tradition  of  the  open  grave.  There 
is  a  consistency  between  an  empty  tomb  and  a  realistic  corporeal  risen 
body,  but  an  inconsistency  between  an  empty  tomb  and  a  spiritual  body. 
In  Luke  and  John  the  realism  is  brought  out  still  more  vividly,  in  the  fact 
that  the  tomb  is  entered  and  that  the  linen  clothes  in  which  Jesus  was 
wrapped  are  seen.     Therefore,  even  though  the  gospels  give  traces  of  the 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  1 7 

two  ideas,  of  a  spiritual  and  a  material  resurrection  of  Jesus,  nevertheless 
the  latter  remains  the  predominant  and  prevailing  type,  especially  so  in 
John  and  Luke. 

The  remaining  New  Testament  books  make  no  contribution  to  the 
nature  of  the  resurrection  thus  far  discussed.  With  the  exception  of  the 
Johannine  \vritings  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  a  resurrection  of  the 
body  is  explicitly  avowed  or  tacitly  assumed.  In  the  Johannine  writings 
there  seems  to  be  an  attestation  of  a  spiritual  as  well  as  a  mechanical 
and  bodily  conception;  while  in  Hebrews  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  resur- 
rection is  a  resurrection  of  the  spirit  or  a  resurrection  of  the  body. 

The  extra-canonical  gospels,  which  exerted  a  direct  and  indirect  influ- 
ence upon  the  Fathers,  adhere  consistently  to  a  resuscitation  of  a  mundane 
body.  In  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  the  account  of  the  empty 
tomb  and  the  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus  is  set  forth  more  vividly  and 
realistically  than  it  was  in  any  of  the  canonical  gospels.  The  same  holds 
true  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter;  only  here  the  body  of  Jesus  assumes  some 
kind  of  a  transcendental  form,  reaching  from  earth  to  heaven,  and  even 
beyond  heaven. 

There  is  thus  in  the  New  Testament  literature  a  confirmation  of  two 
sharply  defined  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body:  (i)  the 
one  is  a  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense,  most  clearly  attested  in 
the  resurrection  narratives  of  Luke  and  John;  (2)  the  other  is  a  purely  spirit- 
ual resurrection,  and  a  permanent  release  from  the  flesh,  clearly  attested  by 
Jesus  and  Paul.  In  a  further  analysis  of  the  latter  conception  of  a  purely 
spiritual  resurrection  two  ideas  are  also  distinguishable:  (a)  the  one  is  a 
resurrection  of  the  "naked"  soul,  which  will  be  clothed  upon  with  a 
heavenly  body,  taught  by  Paul;  (b)  the  other  is  the  continued  life  of  the 
soul  beyond  the  grave  without  the  addition  of  a  heavenly  body  at  some 
period  in  the  after-life,  taught  by  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

Having  described  the  various  Jewish  and  New  Testament  ideas  of  the 
resurrection,  let  us  now  turn  to  trace  the  development  of  thought  in  the 
ante-Nicene  Christian  literature.  Here  we  are  interested  to  know  how 
the  resurrection  was  ai)proached;  how  Scripture  was  interpreted  and  used; 
and  what  arguments  were  employed  in  substantiation  of  the  ideas  that  were 
held.  Then  we  also  wish  to  know  what  place  the  resurrection  held  in  each 
particular  writer  and  what  purpose  it  served — whether  it  was  a  fundamental 
or  a  secondary  consideration,  and  whether  it  was  purely  theological  and 
apologetic.  But  especially  do  we  desire  to  know  what  the  precise  character 
of  the  resurrection  in  each  case  was — whether  the  term  "resurrection"  was 
equivalent  to  personal  immortality;  whether  there  was  a  risen  body,  and 
if  so,  whether  it  was  the  former  body,  or  a  different  body;  and  again,  whether 
a  writer  held  to  one  idea  consistently,  or  whether  two  or  even  more  ideas  were 
sometimes  overlaid  or  welded  together. 

Clement'  of  Rome  stands  out  as  the  first  among  the  apostolic  Fathers. 
His  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  the  only  Christian  monument  of  the  first 
century  not  included  in  the  New  Testament  canon.  His  discussion  of  the 
resurrection  is  very  singular,  and  yet  also  very  simple  (chaps.  24-27).  He 
affirms  that  God  will  effect  a  resurrection  in  the  case  of  man  as  he  has  done 
in  the  case  of  Jesus.  God  has  given  an  assurance  of  the  resurrection  from 
the  very  works  of  nature.  Day  comes  forth  from  the  grave  of  the  night, 
and  out  of  the  decayed  seed  comes  forth  the  plant  and  the  fruit.  But  the 
unique  analogy  is  that  of  the  phoenix.  This  bird  is  the  only  one  of  its 
kind  and  lives  for  five  hundred  years,  after  which  it  enters  into  a  coffin, 
which  it  has  built,  and  dies;  and  "as  the  flesh  rotteth,  a  certain  worm  is 
engendered  which  is  nurtured  from  the  moisture  of  the  dead  creature,  and 
putteth  forth  wings;"  and  so  the  new  creature  completes  a  cycle  of  another 
five  hundred  years.  But  in  addition  to  this  marvelous  sign  of  a  resurrec- 
tion, there  is  also  the  testimony  from  Scripture,  in  which  God  has  given  us 
the  promise  of  a  resurrection  (Ps.  3:6;   23:4;  Job  19:26). 

It  is  evident  that  the  characteristic  argument  of  Clement  for  the  resurrec- 
tion is  the  argument  from  analogy.  For  this  he  is  undoubtedly  indebted  in 
part  to  Paul;  for  he  uses  both  the  illustration  of  the  seed  (24:4,  5),  and  the 

'  No  effort  is  made  to  be  strictly  chronological;  similar  ideas  and  influences  have 
been  often  grouped  together. 

18 


THE  APOSTOLIC   FATHERS  I9 

expression  the  "first-fruit. "  To  this  he  adds  two  original  analogies:  one  in 
reference  to  day  and  night,  the  other  in  reference  to  the  phoenix.  This  bird 
had  been  mentioned  in  Hterature  before,  but  Clement  is  the  first  Christian 
who  both  uses  the  story  and  applies  it  to  the  resurrection.  The  second  argu- 
ment is  the  argument  from  the  Old  Testament.  He  finds  the  promise  of  the 
resurrection  in  two  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  which,  as  a  matter  of 
fact — correctly  interpreted — do  not,  in  the  least,  refer  to  a  resurrection.  It 
is  also  important  to  observe  the  constant  stress  which  the  writer  lays  on 
divine  providence  and  power  through  which  alone  the  resurrection  can  be 
accomplished  (cf.  24:1,5;  26:1;  27:1-3).  At  the  same  time  he  teaches 
that  there  is  a  resurrection  of  those  only  "who  have  served  him  with  holiness 
in  the  assurance  of  a  good  faith." 

What  now  is  the  precise  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  as  conceived 
by  Clement  ?  Since  he  makes  use  of  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Paul's  first 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  it  might  naturally  be  inferred  that  he  conceived 
the  risen  body  to  be  a  spiritual  one;  but  in  spite  of  Pauline  allusions  and 
expressions,  he  seems  to  have  misunderstood  Paul  entirely.  A  resurrection 
of  the  material  body  is  consistently  maintained  throughout  Clement's 
epistle.  The  analogy  of  the  seed  may  not  be  conclusive  evidence,  but  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  the  purpose  of  the  analogy  is  different  from  Paul's. 
In  Paul's  epistle  the  illustration  of  the  seed  is  primarily  used  to  show  the 
sovereign  power  of  God;  and  it  is  distinctly  said  that  the  body  that  is  raised 
is  not  that  which  is  buried,  nor  of  the  same  kind;  while  in  Clement's  the 
main  purpose  of  the  illustration  is  to  show  that  out  of  the  decay  of  the  seed 
comes  forth  the  plant  and  the  fruit.  This  is  also  more  evident  in  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  symbol  of  the  phoenix,  wherein  the  new  creature  arises  out 
of  the  decaying  and  dissolving  body  of  the  old  creature;  and  singularly 
enough,  the  new  body  is  exactly  like  the  old — with  flesh  and  blood.  In 
a  passage  from  Job,  he  states  more  clearly  still  his  position  with  reference 
to  the  character  of  the  resurrection.  As  quoted  by  Clement  it  reads,  "And 
thou  shalt  raise  this  my  flesh  which  hath  endured  all  these  things."'  Here 
he  seems  to  imply  an  actual  restoration  of  the  flesh  in  the  after-life.  It  is 
not  simply  "the  flesh"  of  which  he  speaks  but  "this  my  flesh."  More 
significant  still,  the  word  "flesh"  does  not,  in  this  passage,  occur  in  the 
Septuagint;'  and  it  is  probable  that  the  change  is  due  to  Clement  himself. 
The  resurrection  is  thus  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh — a  material  organism — 
and  not  a  resurrection  in  the  Pauline  sense. 

1  Clemens  Romanus  26:3,  quoted,  in  the  main,  from  Job  19:26:  Kal  avaffrrjaet^ 
Tr]v  ffdpKa  fiov  raiJTriv  rrjv  dvavrXriffaffav  ravra  irdvTa. 

2  A  reads  a-w/xa,  but  S  and  B  read  5ipfj.a. 


20  IDEA  OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

Similarly  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  suggested  as  having  also  been  in  the 
physical  form.  Clement  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  apostles  became  fully 
assured  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  (42:3),  but  says  nothing,  in  this  con- 
nection, of  the  nature  of  that  resurrection.  However,  when  Christ  is  called 
the  "first-fruit"  of  the  resurrection  the  implication  demands  that  his  must 
have  been  like  that  of  the  harvest;  that  is,  like  the  resurrection  of  men, 
whose  resurrection  is  described. 

Ignatius'  constantly  refers  to  the  resurrection  without  exhaustively  treat- 
ing the  subject  in  any  particular  passage.  His  epistle  to  the  Smyrneans, 
however,  presents  the  most  material  and  the  most  interesting  matter.  But  the 
idea  of  the  resurrection  bulks  larger  in  his  thought  than  the  space  which  he 
gives  to  it  would  indicate.  It  was  with  him  as  with  Paul  the  all-important 
fact  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Ignatius,  as  distinguished  from  Clement  who 
dealt  only  with  the  resurrection  of  men,  deals  with  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  almost  exclusively.  The  importance  attached  to  the  resurrection 
is  indicated  in  Smyr.  1:2,  where  he  asserts  that  the  purpose  of  the  crucifixion 
was  to  bring  about  the  resurrection,  so  that  God  might  raise  up  an  ensign 
to  gather  in  all  the  nations.^ 

The  appeal  of  Ignatius,  in  the  setting  forth  of  the  resurrection,  is  to  a 
historical  fact,  and  to  the  consequences  and  inconsistencies  which  follow 
if  that  fact  is  denied.  The  fact,  of  course,  which  he  has  in  mind  is  the 
resurrection  of  the  actual  flesh  of  Jesus.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  also 
that  his  whole  purpose  in  dealing  with  the  resurrection  is  to  repudiate 
Docetism,  which  denied  the  reality  of  the  flesh.  The  Docetists  did  not 
deny  a  spiritual  resurrection,  but  a  corporeal  resurrection.  The  watch- 
word against  Docetism  was  "truly"  {aXrjdux:) ,  which  is  used  with  reference 
to  the  resurrection  in  Tral.  9:2,  Magn.  chap.  11,  Smyr.  chap.  2.  To  the 
same  category  belong  those  stereot)rped  phrases  describing  Christ's  career 
— the  birth,  the  passion,  the  resurrection — which  later  found  their  way 
into  the  Apostles'  Creed.  He  who  denies  the  reality  and  resurrection  of 
the  flesh  of  Christ  forfeits  his  own  immortality  (Smyr.  5:2),  is  unreal  and 
visionary  (Smyr.  2),  and  makes  the  Eucharist  ineffective  (Smyr.  6:2). 
Indeed,  Ignatius  is  the  first  writer  indicating  a  relation  between  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ's  flesh  and  the  Eucharist. 

»  Interpreted  from  the  shorter  Greek  form.  The  longer  Greek  form  is  a  later 
expansion.  For  a  characteristic  treatment  of  the  resurrection  in  this  later  form,  see 
Tral.  9. 

'  ipv  aicffijiuov.  Cf.  Isa.  49:22;  62:10,  where  LXX  reads  atptiv  aiaff-qiiov  to 
describe  the  raising  of  Jehovah's  standard  in  Jerusalem,  about  which  men  should 
rally  from  all  parts  of  the  earth. 


THE  APOSTOLIC   FATHERS  21 

The  precise  character  of  this  risen  body  and  the  source  which  influenced 
Ignatius  is  set  forth  in  Smyr.  chap.  3;  "For  I  know  and  believe  that  he  was 
[is]  in  the  flesh  even  after  the  resurrection.  And  when  he  came  to  Peter 
and  his  company,  he  said  to  them,  Lay  hold  and  handle  me,  and  see  that 
I  am  not  a  demon  without  body  [incorporeal  spirit].  And  straightway  they 
touched  him  and  they  believed,  being  joined  unto  his  flesh  and  his  blood. 
....  And  after  his  resurrection  he  ate  with  them  and  drank  with  them 
as  one  in  the  flesh,  though  spiritually  he  was  united  with  the  Father.'  ' 
Ignatius  teaches,  through  the  use  of  the  present  participle  (ovra),  that 
Jesus  while  in  heaven  is  in  the  flesh,  even  at  the  time  of  his  writing;  he  knows 
and  believes  this.  Incarnation  he  held  continued  to  persist,  not  merely 
after  the  resurrection,  but  also  after  the  ascension.  This  implies  that 
the  pre-ascension  and  the  post-ascension  body  of  the  risen  Christ  were  the 
same.  The  evangelists  give  the  reader  the  general  impression  that  the 
risen  body  of  Christ  assumed  a  spiritual  form  at  the  ascension.  This, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  former  chapter,  is  undoubtedly  due  to  incongruous 
elements  in  the  narrative:  the  one  a  tradition  which  predicates  a  spiritual 
body,  the  other  a  belief  in  a  material  body.  But  in  Ignatius  only  one  idea 
is  held,  and  that  consistently.  The  account  of  the  post-resurrection  experi- 
ence in  Smyr.  3  plainly  conveys  a  reference  to  the  incident  in  Luke  24:36  ff. 
The  words,  however,  by  which  it  is  described  are  so  decidedly  different 
that  another  source  is  suggested  which  doubtless  is  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews.^  The  emphasis  is  vigorously  laid  on  a  fleshly  resurrection. 
Incorporeal  spirit  (Sta^aoViov  do-ci/xaTov) ,  in  spite  of  Origen's  interpretation 
as  referring  to  some  subtle  substance,  is  taken  by  Ignatius  to  refer  to  a 
gross  material  organism.  In  Luke  36:40  the  wounds  are  not  touched, 
but  in  Smyr.  chap.  3,  they  are  touched,  and  the  strongest  possible  expression 
is  chosen  to  express  the  closeness  of  contact  (K/aa^evres) .  That  which  is 
touched  is  flesh  and  blood,  i.  e.,  the  corporeal  part  of  man.  Jesus  is  also 
represented  as  eating  and  drinking  with  his  disciples  as  one  in  the  flesh 
(o>s  a-apKiKos).  The  drinking  is  a  new  feature,  and  may  have  been  inserted 
to  give  added  force  to  what  might  be  characterized  as  a  resuscitated  body. 

1  £70)  7ctp  Kal  fxera  ttjv  dvdffTacnv  ip  ffapKl  avrhv  olda  Kal  irLcrTevw  6vTa.  koI  8re 
irp6i  irepl  Yiirpov  ffKdev,  i<p-q  avroh-  XdjSere,  xprfKacfi-qffaTi  px  Kal  (Sere,  8ti  oiiK  elpl  diapA- 
viov  dffdiixaTov.     Kal  eiidiis  aiirov  if)\pavTO  Kal  iirlffrevaav,  Kpadivres  tji  aapKl  airrov  Kal  rip 

irveij/juiTi pxTo,  Si  ttjv  dvdffTaaiv  <Tvvi<payev  aiiTots  Kal  ffvvimev  ws  <rapKiKbs,  Kalnep 

TTvevp-aTiKQi  rjuw/xivos  t(J3  iraTpL. 

2  Eusebius  (H.  E.  III.  36:11)  confesses  that  he  does  not  know  from  what  source 
this  incident  was  taken;  Jerome  {Vir.  III.  16),  states  that  it  was  taken  from  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews;  Origen  (De  Prin.,  Preface  8)  quotes  it  as  taken  from  the 
Yiirpov  K-f)pVYna. 


22  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

Ignatius  also  uses  the  expression  "he  raised  himself"  (Smyr.  chap.  2), 
which  is  a  decided  advance  upon  New  Testament  doctrine.  In  the  New 
Testament,  Christ  is  always  said  to  be  raised  by  the  Father,  but  in  this 
epistle  he  is  conceived  of  as  rising  by  his  self -power  and  will.  However, 
this  idea  is  not  consistently  held;'  for  in  the  same  epistle  the  doctrine  is 
stated  in  the  scriptural  way  (Smyr.  7:1;  cf.  Tral.  9:2).  Again,  as  is  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  so  is  also  the  resurrection  of  men  (Tral.  9:2).  It  is 
an  honorable  thing  to  keep  the  flesh  holy,  since  it  belongs  to  the  Lord 
(Poly.  5:2);  and  if  it  is  the  Lord's,  then  it  will  not  be  destroyed  but  will 
rise  again. 

The  characteristic  features  of  Ignatius'  thought  about  the  resurrection 
are:  (i)  the  constant  insistence  on  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  in  a  gross 
material  form,  even  to  the  extent  of  asserting  that  Jesus  is  still  in  the  flesh 
after  the  ascension,  and  that  he  had  been  actually  touched;  (2)  the  validity 
of  the  Eucharist  if  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  true,  but  its  invalidity 
if  the  resurrection  is  merely  spiritual;  (3)  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  raised 
himself;  (4)  a  strenuous  opposition  to  Docetism  with  reference  to  the  idea 
of  the  flesh  and  the  resurrection;  (5)  the  dependence  on  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews. 

Polycarp,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  makes  not  a  few  allusions 
to  New  Testament  passages  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection. 
Scripture  is  used  and  quoted  in  a  formal  way,  and  those  familiar  passages 
on  the  resurrection,  in  Acts  and  the  epistles,  are  not  woven  into  the  texture 
of  his  thought;  nevertheless,  the  New  Testament  and  its  truth  are  referred 
to  as  "the  oracles  of  the  Lord"  (ra  Aoyta  tov  Kvptov,  7:1),  in  the  words* 
"And  whosoever  shall  pervert  the  oracles  of  the  Lord  to  his  own  lust  and 
say  there  is  neither  resurrection  nor  judgment,  that  man  is  the  first-born  of 
Satan."  The  same  Docetic  teachers — who  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
spirit,  but  not  in  that  of  the  body — whom  Ignatius  attacked  are  here  referred 
to.  Hence  the  expressions  in  which  Polycarp  conveys  his  strong  protest 
must  have  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  some  kind  of  a  body,  presumably 
a  material  organism. 

In  the  document  known  as  the  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp  the  resurrection 
of  the  material  body  is  maintained  for  martyrs,  which  is  described  as  a 
"resurrection  unto  eternal  life  both  of  soul  and  body." 

Barnabas  furnishes  us  only  with  fragmentary  references  on  the  resurrec- 
tion. In  regard  to  Jesus  he  says  that  he  rose,  manifested  himself,  and 
ascended  on  the  same  day  (15:9):*     "Wherefore  also  we  keep  the  eighth 

I  The  change  was  felt  by  later  readers  and  transcribers,  so  that  an  interpolater 
substituted  Ac^ctttj  for  a.vio'Triatv  iavrbv. 

»  The  punctuation  of  Dressel  puts  the  ascension  on  another  day. 


THE   APOSTOLIC    FATHERS  23 

day  for  rejoicing  in  the  which  also  Jesus  arose  from  the  dead,  and  having 
been  manifested  ascended  into  heaven."  The  order  of  events  and  the 
ascension  on  the  same  day  as  the  resurrection  is  in  harmony  v^^ith  the  Gospel 
of  Peter,  but  there  is  no  hint  that  this  gospel  was  used  or  exerted  any  influ- 
ence. Nothing  is  said  bearing  on  the  nature  of  the  risen  body.  In  5:6 
it  is  stated  that  "he  himself  endured  that  he  might  destroy  death  and  show 
forth  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  for  that  he  must  needs  be  manifested  in 
the  flesh."  The  manifestation  of  Jesus  in  the  flesh  has  reference  to  his 
incarnation,  and  does  not  give  us  any  clue  to  his  conception  of  the  nature 
of  the  resurrection  body. 

The  Didache,  Papias,  and  the  Elders  approach  the  resurrection  more 
or  less  from  the  standpoint  of  messianism  and  the  apocalyptic  ideas.  In 
all  of  them  there  is  a  very  realistic  and  gross  conception  of  the  risen  body, 
both  of  Jesus  and  of  men,  during  a  millennium  reign.  In  the  Didache 
resurrection,  judgment,  and  the  second  coming  are  bound  together  in  one 
act.  The  Lord  will  come  in  the  clouds,  the  heavens  will  be  rent,  the  trumpets 
will  blow,  and  the  dead  saints  will  arise  (16:6-8).  The  viritings  of  Papias 
are  no  longer  extant,  and  we  must  rely  on  fragments  of  his  writings  and 
scanty  notices  of  his  theological  opinions  in  other  writers.  It  is  said  by 
Jerome  that  he  promulgated  the  Jewish  tradition  of  a  millennium,  and  by 
others  that  he  thought  that  after  the  resurrection  the  Lord  would  reign  in 
the  flesh  with  the  saints  (Vir.  III.  18).  "Viands  are  among  the  sources 
of  delight  in  the  resurrection,"  and  "the  kingdom  of  heaven  consists  in 
the  enjoyment  of  certain  material  foods."  The  righteous  who  are  to  share 
in  this  millennium  enjoy  a  wealth  of  food  of  all  kinds,  which  is  described 
fully  by  Irenaeus  in  the  famous  passage  that  speaks  of  the  prolific  fruitful- 
ness  of  the  vine  and  the  wheat  (Iren.  V.  33,  34).  Whether  Papias  also  held 
another  idea  of  the  resurrection — a  resurrection  of  the  spirit  or  a  spiritual 
body — which  would  come  at  the  end  of  this  millennium,  we  have  no  data  to 
know.  In  the  Testimony  of  the  Elders,  preserved  by  Irenaeus,  there  is  a 
gradation  of  rewards  for  the  righteous,  and,  at  least,  two  if  not  all  three 
classes  enjoy  material  rewards  in  the  after-life  (Iren.  V.  36).  Those  who 
inhabit  the  city,  the  New  Jerusalem  on  earth,  will  of  course  live  an  earthly 
life;  those  who  enjoy  the  delights  of  Paradise  will  be  bodily  translated  there; 
those  who  go  to  heaven  might  be  supposed  to  assume  another  form,  but 
this  again  is  not  the  final  goal  and  final  resurrection ;  for  it  is  asserted  that 
those  who  are  translated  to  Paradise  merely  remain  there  until  the  end  of 
all  things.  As  to  the  nature  of  the  final  resurrection  which  must  logically 
conclude  the  millennium  era  we  can  give  no  definite  answer. 

In  the  so-called  Second  Epistle  of  Clement,  or  the  earliest  homily,  the 


24  IDEA   OF    RESURRECTION    IN   ANTENICENE    PERIOD 

resurrection  is  approached  from  a  consideration  of  the  nature  and  impor- 
tance of  the  flesh.  Although  there  is  only  one  passage  which  directly  deals 
with  the  resurrection,  nevertheless  the  idea  of  the  fleshly  resurrection  of 
men  is  set  forth  in  more  realistic  terms  than  in  any  of  the  writers  thus  far 
examined.  In  9:1-5  we  read:  "And  let  not  any  one  of  you  say  that  this 
flesh  is  not  judged  neither  riseth  again.  Understand  ye.  In  what  were 
ye  saved  ?  In  what  did  ye  recover  your  sight  ?  if  ye  were  not  in  this  flesh. 
We  ought  therefore  to  guard  the  tlesh  as  a  temple  of  God:  for  in  like  manner 
as  ye  were  called  in  the  flesh,  ye  shall  come  also  in  the  flesh.  If  Christ 
the  Lord  who  saved  us,  being  first  spirit,  then  became  flesh,  and  so  called 
us,  in  Hke  manner  also  shall  we  in  this  flesh  receive  our  reward."  This 
is  an  unmistakably  clear  statement,  the  argument  of  which  was  directed 
against  those  who  denied  a  bodily  resurrection,  presumably  an  incipient 
Gnosticism  (cf.  8,  14,  16).  The  body  which  rises  has  not  merely  the  same 
kind  of  substance  which  the  earthly  body  possesses,  but  it  is  the  very  identical 
substance  {avr-q  ^  a-dp^).  There  are  two  arguments  set  forth  for  this  kind 
of  a  resurrection.  A  person  shall  be  judged  in  the  flesh  and  will  receive 
recompense  in  the  flesh  in  the  same  manner  in  which  he  was  called.  This 
idea  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh — for  the  purpose  of  judgment  and 
rewards — is  set  forth  in  this  ancient  homily  for  the  first  time.  The  flesh 
is  also  a  temple  of  God,  and  therefore  must  be  guarded  and  kept  pure.  He 
calls  it  the  holy  flesh  (17  o-ap^  ayvrj)  (8:4).  Here  may  be  an  allusion  to 
Paul  (I  Cor.  6:14,19);  but  in  the  case  of  Paul  the  attention  is  directed  to 
the  fact  that  we  carry  in  our  bodies  the  Spirit  of  God,  which,  becoming  a 
temple  of  God,  should  be  kept  pure  and  undefiled.  In  this  homily,  however, 
the  reason  for  keeping  the  body  pure  is  because  it  will  rise  again.  Christ 
had  put  the  emphasis  on  the  inner  life,  stating  that  the  life  which  is  in  God 
and  for  God  is  eternal.  Clement  II  lays  stress  on  the  flesh  and  states  that 
the  flesh  will  have  an  eternal  life  provided  it  is  kept  pure.  We  shall  rise 
in  the  flesh  because  of  the  singular  fact  that  Christ  was  first  spirit,  and  that 
when  he  came  to  save  us  he  assumed  flesh.  These  arguments  became 
dominant  later  on;  and  in  the  j)assage  quoted  is  e.xpressed  the  underlying 
thought  which  was  taken  up  by  later  writers  and  developed  with  great 
completeness. 

The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  approaches  the  resurrection  from  the  same 
standpoint,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  this  should  have  been  the  case, 
since  it  came  "ex  eadem  communionc  ac  societate.^'  In  Sim.  V.  7,  i  f.,  we 
read  as  follows:  "Keep  thy  flesh  pure  and  undefiled,  that  the  spirit  which 
dwelleth  in  it  may  bear  witness  to  it  and  thy  flesh  may  be  justified.  See 
that   it  never  enter  into  thy  heart  that  this  flesh  of  thine  is  perishable 


THE   APOSTOLIC    FATHERS  25 

and  so  thou  abuse  it  in  some  defilement.  [For]  if  thou  defile  thy  flesh, 
thou  shalt  defile  the  Holy  Spirit  also,  but  if  thou  defile  the  spirit,  thou  shalt 
not  live."'  Flesh  is  not  perishable,  and  its  survival  after  death  is  a  basis 
for  morality.  Hermas  also  teaches  that  the  flesh  which  survives  the  spirit 
unblamably  shall  have  a  place  of  sojourn,  in  order  that  it  may  not  lose 
the  reward  of  its  service  (Sim.  V.  6,  7). 

In  the  apostolic  Fathers  the  idea  of  the  resurrection,  though  meagerly 
treated,  is  nevertheless  of  great  significance.  With  the  exception  of  Bar- 
nabas and  those  treatises  which  deal  with  the  millenium,  there  is  a  decided 
uniformity  as  to  what  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  shall  be.  The 
Pauline  conception,  in  spite  of  Pauline  allusions  and  references,  falls  into 
disfavor;  and  a  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense,  with  reference 
both  to  Jesus  and  to  men,  is  either  tacitly  assumed  or  avowedly  e.xpressed. 
In  the  effort  to  oppose  Docetism  the  reahty  of  the  flesh  of  Christ — both  of 
his  earthly  career  and,  significantly,  also  of  his  heavenly  state — is  asserted. 
Dependence  is  shown,  in  at  least  one  instance,  upon  an  extra-canonical 
gospel;  and  some  of  the  theological  and  apologetic  arguments,  so  pronounced 
in  subsequent  writers,  are  set  forth  in  an  incipient  form. 

I  This  is  according  to  the  Gebhardt,  Harnack,  and  Zahn  text,  which  reads:  iav 
5i  fiidv-QS  t6  TTveu/j.a,  ov  ^ri<rri.  Lightfoot's  text  is  still  more  suggestive  for  our  purpose, 
reading  ra,  crdpKa.,  instead  of  rb  irvedfj-a. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  APOLOGISTS 

In  the  early  apologists  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  more  fully 
developed,  and  the  ideas  concerning  it  are  more  comprehensively  stated, 
than  they  were  in  the  apostolic  Fathers.  A  few  single  treatises  were 
written  on  the  subject,  and  many  original  arguments  were  used.  Justin 
Martyr  being  the  foremost,  if  not  the  first,  among  the  apologists,  largely 
leads  and  pioneers  the  way.  He  deals  with  the  resurrection  both  of  Jesus 
and  of  men,  both  in  the  Apologies  and  in  the  Dialogue  with  TrypJio.  Speak- 
ing first  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  it  does  not,  in  his  thought,  hold  the  same 
place  as  the  second  coming,  the  virgin  birth,  and  the  crucifixion;  even 
though  the  significance  attributed  to  it  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  sets  forth  his 
glory  and  makes  certain  his  second  coming.  Nevertheless,  Justin  makes 
reference  to  the  story  imbedded  in  Matt.  28:11-15;  viz.,  that  the  disciples 
stole  the  body  of  Jesus  and  then  declared  his  resurrection,  and  adds  that  the 
Jews  proclaimed  this  "godless  doctrine"  throughout  the  world  {Dia.  108). 
He  also  repeats  the  tradition  of  the  evangelists  in  regard  to  the  post- 
resurrection  life  of  Jesus,  and  understands  it  in  the  same  way  in  which  it 
was  portrayed  by  John  and  Luke.  Jesus  was  buried  at  eventide  and  rose 
again  on  the  third  day  {Dia.  97,  100) — "the  third  day"  being  here 
mentioned  for  the  first  time  outside  the  gospels.'  After  the  resurrection  he 
lived  with  his  disciples,  assured  them  that  his  passion  and  death  were  fore- 
told, and  sang  hymns  with  them  (Dia.  106);  in  variation  from  the  gospels, 
he  asserts  that  when  the  disciples  were  convinced,  by  Jesus,  of  his  resurrec- 
tion, "they  went  into  all  the  world,  and  taught  these  truths"  {Dia.  53). 

His  idea  of  the  resurrection  of  men  can  be  approached  best  by  presenting 
his  whole  conception  of  the  after-life,  since  in  his  thinking  the  resurrection 
is  knit  up  with  his  entire  eschatology.  There  arc  two  marked  features  in 
his  eschatology:  the  one  is  the  millennium,  the  other  the  resurrection;  and 
the  two  are  indissoluljly  bound  together.  Death  he  defines  as  the  separa- 
tion of  the  soul  from  the  body.  "Man  does  not  live  always,  and  the  soul 
is  not  forever  conjoined  with  the  body,  since,  whenever  this  harmony 
must  be  broken  up,  the  soul  leaves  the  body,  and  man  exists  no  longer" 
{Dia.  6).     The  soul  neither  ])erishes  with  the  body  nor  suffers  dissolution 

•  Cf.  also  Arislides,  Apol.  II,  where  the  descriplion  runs  thus:  "He  died,  was 
buried,  and  llicy  say  that  after  three  days  he  arose  and  ascended  to  heaven." 

26 


THE   APOLOGISTS  27 

and  yet,  souls  are  not  naturally  immortal  (Dia.  5).  The  soul,  he  states,  is 
not  life,  but  has  life,  which  hfe  may  be  extinguished;  nevertheless  it  is  God's 
will  that  sc^uls  should  not  die,  but  be  kept  intact.  If  death  would  be  the 
end  then  it  would  be  "a  piece  of  unlooked-for  luck"  (Ipijuuov)  to  all  the 
wicked  {Apol.  I.  18).  The  soul  at  death  does  not  directly  go  to  heaven  or 
hell,  as  the  heretics  teach  {Dia.  80);  but  it  enters  an  intermediate  place, 
where  all  common  mortals  remain  until  the  resurrection  {Dia.  5).  He 
repeatedly  and  emphatically  states  that  these  souls  in  Hades  are  still 
endowed  with  sensation  {Apol.  I.  20;  Dia.  57).  Greek  life,  literature,  and 
mythology  point  to  this  fact  {Apol.  I.  18).  However,  this  state  of  sensa- 
tion in  which  the  righteous  experience  joy  and  the  unrighteous  pain  is  not 
the  end  and  goal  of  the  future  life. 

Justin  accepted  the  idea  of  the  millennium,  and  inserted  it  bodily  into 
his  system  of  thought.  This  millennium  kingdom  is  established  at  Christ's 
second  coming,  and  is  preceded  by  the  resurrection  of  dead  Christians, 
prophets,  and  pious  Jews.  It  is  known  as  the  first  or  "holy  resurrection" 
(ayia  dmaTao-ts,  Dia.  113),  differentiated  from  the  general  or  "eternal 
resurrection"  {anovia  dvao-rao-is,  Dia.  Si).  During  this  time  the  New 
Jerusalem  will  be  built;  and  there  will  be  physical  enjoyments,  in  which 
Christ  will  eat  and  drink  with  the  members  of  his  kingdom.  At  the  close 
of  the  thousand  years  of  Christ's  reign  upon  the  earth  the  second  act  of  the 
great  drama  of  the  resurrection  is  expected.  This  resurrection  is  intended 
for  all  men,  without  exception  {Dia.  81),  and  is  designed  primarily  for 
judgment;  through  which  such  recompense  is  made  that  the  just  ascend  into 
heaven  and  the  wicked  descend  into  a  hell  of  fire  {Apol.  II.  i,  2;  Dia.  130). 
In  form  and  nature  the  two  acts  of  the  resurrection  do  not  differ  from  each 
other.  The  life  after  the  second  resurrection  is  simply  a  continuance  of 
the  life  of  the  millennium.  There  is  no  indication  that  the  resurrection  of 
the  one  is  that  of  the  body,  and  the  other  that  of  the  spirit;  nor  that  the 
second  resurrection  is  of  a  spiritual  body,  while  the  former  was  a  material 
body.  In  fact,  Justin  nowhere  desires  his  readers  to  form  the  impression 
that  the  resurrection  body  in  the  millennium  state  is  different  from  that 
of  the  post-millennium  state. 

What  then  is  the  precise  nature  of  this  resurrection  body  ?  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  term  "resurrection  of  the  flesh"  (crap/cos  dvaorrao-is)  comes  to 
light  here  for  the  first  time.  The  term  "rising  of  the  flesh"  had  been 
used  before,  but  not  "resurrection  of  the  flesh."  However,  the  expres- 
sion occurs  only  once  in  Justin  {Dia.  80).  As  a  rule  he  prefers  the  biblical 
expression,  "resurrection  from  the  dead."  But  at  no  point  is  one  left  in 
doubt  as  to  what  kind  of  a  resurrection  is  meant.     The  body  rises  with  the 


28  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

same  form  and  substance,  with  the  same  component  parts  and  members 
from  the  grave,  as  it  possessed  while  alive.  "We  expect  to  receive  again 
our  own  bodies,  though  they  be  dead  and  cast  into  the  earth,  for  we  main- 
tain that  with  God  nothing  is  impossible."^  It  is  asserted,  with  reference 
to  the  wicked,  that  their  bodies  will  unite  again  with  their  spirits,  and 
undergo  everlasting  punishment  {Apol.  I.  8);  and  with  reference  to  the 
righteous,  that  there  will  be  a  perfect  identity  between  the  deceased  and  risen 
body — the  only  difference  being  that  mutilated  bodies  will  rise  with  their 
limbs  restored  {Apol.  I.  8).  There  will  also  be  in  the  resurrection  body  a 
discontinuance  of  the  sexual  functions  (based  on  Luke  20:29-34),  and 
an  exemption  from  pain  {Dia.  69, 121).  In  Apol.  1. 19,  Justin  tries  to  meet 
an  objection  which  has  been  made,  or  which,  at  least,  he  feels  might  be 
made,  viz.,  that  it  is  impossible  that  the  bodies  of  men  which  have  been 
dissolved  should  rise  again  with  the  same  form  and  substance.  This  he 
answers  by  referring  to  the  miraculous  power  of  life  and  growth  issuing 
from  a  human  seed.  The  analogy,  however,  of  the  human  seed  is  not  an 
analogy  of  the  process  of  the  resurrection,  but  is  used  only  to  indicate  the 
power  of  God,  and  the  credibility  of  a  bodily  resurrection.  The  resur- 
rection seems  incredible  to  one  merely  because  he  has  never  seen  it,  just 
as  the  growth  of  a  man  out  of  a  human  germ  would  seem  incredible  were 
it  not  a  commonplace. 

Justin  bodily  repeats  and  formally  adheres  to  Christian  tradition  in 
his  treatment  of  the  resurrection,  which  he  indissolubly  binds  up  with  the 
millennium.  He  himself  states  that  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  and  the 
thousand  years'  reign  belong  only  to  a  certain  class — those  who  are  thor- 
oughly orthodox  (op^oyvw/AOves  Kara  Travra  Xpio-riavoi,  Dia.  80).  He  makes 
no  attempt  to  interpret  either  Jesus  or  Paul  on  the  resurrection,  but 
simply  falls  back  on  Jewish  and  Christian  apocalypses  and  on  Christian 
tradition  for  his  ideas  of  the  resurrection.  Neither  is  he  carried  away  by  the 
Platonic  conceptions  of  immortality.  He  thoroughly  knows  the  position 
of  Plato  and  states  it  (Dia.  i),  but  only  to  refute  it.  His  theology  is  very 
much  colored  with  the  philosophic  conceptions,  especially  with  reference 
to  God  and  the  Logos;  and  yet,  notwithstanding,  he  sets  over  against  it 
the  grossest  and  most  materialistic  conception  of  the  after-life  and  the 
resurrection  body,  which,  in  fact,  is  in  direct  opposition  to  Hellenistic  ideas, 
and  which  ill  accords  with  his  otherwise  Platonic  conceptions. 

The  treatise  entitled  "On  the  Resurrection,""  attributed  to  Justin,  but 

'  Apol.  I.  18.     ol  Kal  tA.  veKpoiifxtva  Kal  els  yrjv  /3aX\6/i€vo  irdXiv  airo\-^-l/£<TOat  iavrdv 
ird/MTa  irpoadoKwiMv,  adOvaroi'  /j-tjS^v  elvai  6e<^  Xiyovres. 
2  Trept  dvacTTdcews. 


THE   APOLOGISTS  29 

wrongly  so,  may  be  treated  in  this  connection.  At  least,  it  belongs  not 
far  after  Justin.'  This  pseudonymous  writing  is  more  Platonic  and  more 
ascetic  than  the  authentic  works  of  Justin.  The  entire  treatise  is  devoted 
to  an  exposition  of  the  resurrection,  and  is  of  the  highest  value  for  our 
purpose.  It  is  the  first  attempt  to  set  forth  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh 
in  an  orderly  manner.  It  is  an  apologetic  against  the  heathen  denial  of 
the  resurrection,  and  indirectly  a  polemic  against  Gnostic  tenets.  The 
arguments  of  the  opponents  are  stated  and  then  refuted  one  by  one.  In 
one  passage  attention  is  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  argument  is  "secular 
and  physical,"  not  scriptural  (5),^  while  the  reason  assigned  for  adopting 
this  line  of  argument  is  to  meet  the  opponents  of  the  resurrection  on  their  own 
ground;  and,  in  fact,  this  is  what  the  treatise  mostly  undertakes  to  do. 
The  purpose  as  stated  is  twofold:  first,  to  solve  the  things  which  seem  insol- 
uble to  those  who  deny  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh ;  and  secondly,  to  demon- 
strate, in  an  orderly  manner,  that  the  flesh  will  partake  of  salvation  (2). 

The  writer  shows,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  body  will  rise  entire — 
with  all  its  former  members  and  organs,  which,  however,  will  not  all  per- 
form the  same  functions  as  they  performed  in  the  earthly  body.  There 
are  even  cases  in  this  life  in  which  that  is  true;  for  he  writes,  "Let  not,  then, 
those  that  are  unbelieving  marvel,  if  in  the  world  to  come  he  do  away  with 
those  acts  of  our  fleshly  members  which  even  sometimes  in  this  present 
life  are  abolished"  (3).  The  resurrection  body,  however,  will  be  perfect 
and  entire  without  any  bodily  defects.  One  of  the  purposes  for  which  Jesus 
performed  miracles  of  healing  was  to  induce  the  belief  that  in  the  resurrec- 
tion the  flesh  shall  rise  entire.  "For  if  on  earth  he  healed  the  sicknesses  of 
the  flesh,  and  made  the  body  whole,  much  more  will  he  do  this  in  the 
resurrection,  so  that  the  flesh  shall  rise  perfect  and  entire"  (4). 

Furthermore,  God  is  competent  to  raise  this  earthly  body.  The  heathen 
believe  that  all  things  are  possible  to  their  gods,  and  if  they  believe  so, 
Christians  have  much  more  reason  to  believe  this  with  reference  to  their 
God.  Besides,  that  the  first  man  was  created,  that  men  are  generated  from 
a  human  seed,  that  cases  of  resurrection  have  actually  haj)pened — all 
these  are  proofs  that  God  has  the  power  to  bring  about  a  universal  resur- 
rection (5).  The  resurrection  is  also  consistent  with  the  opinion  of  the 
philosophers:  with  Plato,  who  says  that  all  things  are  made  from  matter 
by  God;  with  Epicurus,  who  asserts  that  all  things  are  made  from  the  atom 
and  the  void;  and  with  the  Stoics,  who  declare  that  all  things  are  made  out 

I  "Darf  somit  fiir  sehr  wahrscheinlich  resp.  fiir  fast  gevviss  gelten,  dass  unsere 
Schrift  bereits  vor  180  existirte." — Harnack,    Gesch,  AUchrisl.  Litt.  II,  i,  p.  509. 
*  These  references  are  to  chaps,  in  pseudo-Justin,  De  Resiirreclione. 


50  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

of  the  four  elements.  "There  are  some  doctrines  acknowledged  by  them 
all  in  common,  one  of  which  is  that  neither  can  anything  be  produced  from 
what  is  not  in  being,  nor  anything  be  destroyed  or  dissolved  into  what  has 
not  any  being,  and  that  the  elements  exist  indestructible  out  of  which  all 
things  are  generated.  And  this  being  so,  the  regeneration  of  the  flesh  will, 
according  to  all  these  philosophies,  appear  to  be  possible"  (6).  The 
flesh  in  God's  sight  is  also  a  precious  possession,  as  is  evident  from  its 
creation  (7).  It  is  not  the  flesh  alone  that  sins,  as  is  asserted  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  resurrection;  but  both  body  and  soul  sin  together.  And  if 
it  should  really  be  true  that  flesh  is  sinful,  then  there  is  this  undeniable 
fact  that  the  Savior  came  to  save  flesh;  so  that  in  either  case  flesh  must  be 
valuable  in  God's  sight,  and  being  valuable,  he  must  raise  it  (8). 

In  the  concluding  chapters,  preserved  only  in  fragments,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  flesh  is  set  forth  in  its  clearest  light.  This  resurrection  is  proved 
both  from  Christ's  miracles  of  raising  and  his  own  resurrection.  The 
former  is  manifested  in  the  following  passage: 

If  he  had  no  need  of  the  flesh,  why  did  he  heal  it  ?  And  what  is  most  forcible 
of  all,  he  raised  the  dead.  Why  ?  Was  it  not  to  show  what  the  resurrection  should 
be  ?  How  then  did  he  raise  the  dead  ?  Their  souls  or  their  bodies  ?  Mani- 
festly both.  If  the  resurrection  were  only  spiritual,  it  was  requisite  that  he,  in 
raising  the  dead,  should  show  that  body  lying  apart  by  itself,  and  the  soul  lying 
apart  by  itself.  But  now  he  did  not  do  so,  but  raised  the  body,  confirming  in  it 
the  promise  of  life  (9). 

The  latter,  that  is,  the  proof  from  Christ's  owm  resurrection  is  described 
in  the  following  words: 

Why  did  he  rise  in  the  flesh  in  which  he  suffered,  unless  to  show  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  ?  And  wishing  to  confirm  this,  when  his  disciples  did  not  know 
whether  to  believe  he  had  truly  risen  in  the  body,  and  were  looking  upon  him  and 
doubting,  he  said  to  them,  "Ye  have  not  yet  faith;  see  that  it  is  I;"  and  he  let  them 
handle  him,  and  showed  them  the  prints  of  the  nails  in  his  hands.  And  when 
they  were  by  every  kind  of  proof  persuaded  that  it  was  himself  and  in  the  body, 
they  asked  him  to  eat  with  them,  that  they  might  thus  still  more  accurately  ascer- 
tain that  he  had  in  verity  risen  bodily;  and  he  did  eat  honey-comb  and  fish.  And 
when  he  had  thus  shown  them  that  there  is  truly  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  wishing 
to  show  them  this  also,  that  it  is  not  impossible  for  flesh  to  ascend  into  heaven 
(as  he  had  said  that  our  dwelling-place  is  in  heaven),  "he  was  taken  up  into 
heaven  while  they  beheld,"  as  he  was  in  the  flesh  (9). 

In  this  quotation  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  portrayed  with 
greater  reality  than  in  our  canonical  gospels.  The  description  seems 
to  accord  in  some  respects  with  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews;  for 


THE   APOLOGISTS  3 1 

in  that  gospel,  as  in  this  treatise,  it  is  stated  that  the  disciples  actually 
touched  the  risen  Lord.  The  ascension  in  the  flesh  reminds  us  of  Ignatius, 
on  whom  there  may  have  been  a  tacit  dependence.  The  concluding  frag- 
ment states  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  also  very  realistically. 

The  resurrection  is  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  which  died.  For  the  spirit 
dies  not;  the  soul  is  in  the  body,  and  without  a  soul  it  cannot  live.  The  body,  when 
the  soul  forsakes  it,  is  not.  For  the  body  is  the  house  of  the  soul;  and  the  soul 
the  house  of  the  spirit.  These  three,  in  all  those  who  cherish  a  sincere  hope  and 
unquestioning  faith  in  God,  will  be  saved.' 

Herein  it  is  explicitly  stated  that  the  resurrection  is  a  resurrection,  not 
merely  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  very  "flesh  which  died." 

In  summing  up  the  views  set  forth  by  pseudo-Justin,  it  may  be  noted: 
(i)  that  there  is  to  be  a  real  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  accordingly 
various  terms — the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  salvation  of  the  flesh,  regen- 
eration of  the  flesh,  promise  of  the  flesh — are  used  to  express  this  idea; 
(2)  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  of  a  material  body — a  person  capable 
of  being  touched,  who  ate  and  in  the  flesh  ascended  into  heaven;  (3)  that 
the  arguments,  because  they  are  determined,  in  method  and  content, 
by  the  opponents  of  the  resurrection,  are  apologetic  and  theological 
rather  than  scriptural;  (4)  that  in  the  use  of  the  post-resurrection  narratives 
of  Jesus  there  is  apparently  felt  the  influence  of  an  extra-canonical  gospel 
— the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews;  (5)  that  no  use  is  made  of  the 
Pauline  teaching  on  the  resurrection,  or  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  save 
to  the  effect  that  in  the  resurrection  body  certain  functions  are  annulled. 

Athenagoras  wrote  a  treatise  On  the  Resurrection  of  the  Dead,^  in  which 
he  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in  a  still  more 
logical  scheme  than  pseudo-Justin.  The  opponents  against  which  the 
treatise  was  directed  are  the  heathen.  Like  pseudo- Justin,  Athenagoras 
also  divides  his  work  into  two  parts:  in  the  first,  or  negative  part,  he  answers 
certain  objections  offered  by  those  who  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection; and  in  the  second,  or  positive  part,  he  instructs  and  confirms 
Christians  in  their  belief  in  the  doctrine.  In  the  first  part,  he  shows  that  the 
objectors  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  bodies  of  men  will  be  restored. 
He  refutes  both  underlying  objections,  viz.,  that  God  is  neither  able  nor  will- 
ing to  call  the  dead  back  to  life.  And  if  God,  he  continues,  is  unable  to  accom- 

^  De  Resurreclione  {16):  ' Avdaracrls  iffri  tou  -n-eirTdsKbTos  capKlov  •  irvevva  yap  oii 
irliTTei.  ^vxv  ^''  (Tii/JLCLrl  iffTiv^  ov  ^y  6^  d\f/vxov  •  aCifia,  ^vxv^  dTToXeiTroiyff?;?,  ovk  ecmv. 
oIkos  yap  rb  aCifia  ipvxrjs,  irvevnaros  5i  4^vxv  oIkos.  to.  rpla  Si  ravra  rots  ^Xtrlda  elXi- 
KpLVTJ  Kal  wlcTiv  dSiaKpiTov  if  T(f)  de(^  ex"^*''"'  cw^Tjtrerat. 

2  irepi  dvao'Tdiyecjs  veKpdv. 


32  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN  ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

plish  the  resurrection,  then  he  must  be  deficient  either  in  knowledge  or  in 
power.  But  either  position  is  absurd;  for  God  knows,  yea,  he  must  know, 
"both  the  members  entire  and  the  particles  of  which  they  consist,  and 
whither  each  of  the  dissolved  particles  passes,  and  what  part  of  the  elements 
has  received  that  which  is  dissolved."  Neither  can  he  be  ignorant  of 
the  method  by  which  bodies  may  be  recalled  to  life  (2).'  Moreover,  God's 
power  is  also  sufficient  for  the  raising  of  dead  bodies.  The  God  who 
created  them  must  also  be  able  to  restore  them ;  a  fact  which  he  maintains 
to  hold  true,  whether  we  think  of  the  first  formation  of  bodies  and  their 
elements,  or  the  formation  through  pro-generation.  Even  the  parts  of 
human  bodies  which  are  taken  into  animals  can  be  separated  and  restored 
by  God  (3).  Disbelievers  object,  saying  that  human  elements,  eaten  and 
absorbed  by  animals  or  human  beings,  cannot  be  separated  (4).  To  this 
he  answers  by  saying  that  for  each  living  thing  God  has  provided  suitable 
food,  and  that  only  what  is  suitable  becomes  a  part  of  the  body  through 
the  process  of  digestion,  while  whatever  is  unsuitable  is  rejected  (5,  6).  In 
chap.  7,  a  new  line  of  argument  is  introduced,  and  the  objections  are  met 
on  a  higher  plane.  The  resurrection  body  will  be  somewhat  different 
from  the  present,  throwing  aside  its  corruptibility,  its  needs,  and  its  material 
functions  and  conditions  (cf.  Apol.  31).  Hence  no  foreign  element  can 
become  a  necessary  part  of  that  true  body  which  shall  rise.  The  objectors 
to  the  resurrection  draw  a  conclusion  from  potters  and  artificers,  who  are 
unable  to  renew  their  work  when  once  destroyed;  but  Athenagoras  points 
out  that  there  is  no  basis  for  an  objection  in  this  analogy,  since  "what  is 
impossible  with  man  is  possible  with  God"  (9).  That  God  does  not 
wish  to  raise  the  dead — the  second  underlying  objection — is  likewise  unten- 
able. The  resurrection  of  men  is  not  an  injustice  to  angels  {vorjTol  ^wcts); 
nor  do  inanimate  or  irrational  beings,  who  do  not  share  in  the  same  resur- 
rection, sustain  any  wrong;  nor  is  injustice  done  to  the  man  who  is  raised, 
"for  he  consists  of  soul  and  body  and  he  suffers  no  wrong  as  to  either  soul 
or  body;"  "nor  can  one  say  that  it  is  a  work  unworthy  of  God  to  raise  up 
and  bring  together  again  a  body  which  has  been  dissolved"  (10). 

In  the  second  part  of  the  discussion  four  arguments  are  adduced  in 
support  of  the  resurrection  of  men:  (i)  The  final  cause  of  man's  creation. 
Man  was  not  created  for  the  sake  of  another  being,  but  that  he  might  be 
a  perpetual  beholder  of  divine  wisdom.  The  creature  who  has  in  himself 
the  image  of  his  Creator  partakes  of  an  intelligent  life,  and,  having  become 
a  spectator  of  God's  grandeur  and  wisdom  manifested  in  all  things,  con- 

I  All  references,  unless  otherwise  indicated,  are  to  the  above-mentioned  work, 
On  the  Resurrection  oj  the  Dead. 


THE   APOLOGISTS  S3 

tinues  always  in  the  contemplation  of  these;  and  for  this  purpose  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  and  the  soul  is  estabHshed  (12,  13).  (2)  Consideration 
of  man's  nature,  who  is  the  end  of  rational  hfe,  and  who  consequently  must 
have  a  perpetual  existence.  Man  is  composed  of  an  immortal  soul,  and  a 
body  fitted  to  it  in  creation.  Both  are  active  in  life  and  there  is  one  harmony 
and  community  of  e.xperience  in  this  world.  Hence  the  end  of  these  two 
must  be  the  same,  and  since  there  is  one  common  end  of  the  being  thus 
compounded  the  resurrection  is  a  necessary  inference.  If  the  entire  nature 
of  man  does  not  continue,  then  everything  is  in  vain — body  and  soul,  under- 
standing and  insight,  righteousness  and  virtue,  everything  joyous  and  beauti- 
ful (14-17).  (3)  The  necessity  of  divine  judgment,  in  body  and  soul,  from 
the  providence  and  justice  of  God.  Deeds  are  wrought  in  union  of  body 
and  soul,  and  it  would  be  unjust  to  reward  or  punish  only  one.  If  there 
is  no  resurrection  then  there  is  no  providence,  and  no  reward  of  good  or 
evil.  It  would  be  unjust  to  reward  or  punish  the  soul  alone  when  the  body 
was  a  partaker  of  good  and  bad  deeds.  Again,  the  virtues  and  vices  of 
man  cannot  be  thought  of  as  existing  in  an  unembodied  soul.  Even  the 
ten  commandments  (especially  four,  six,  and  seven)  are  designed  both  for 
body  and  soul,  and  the  soul  alone  is  not  to  be  held  responsible  (18-23). 
(4)  The  ultimate  end  of  man's  being,  not  to  be  attained  on  earth.  Every- 
thing has  its  particular  end  and,  in  accordance  with  this  principle,  man  also 
has  his  particular  end.  Freedom  from  pain  cannot  be  the  final  goal  for 
man,  nor  can  it  consist  in  the  enjoyment  of  things  which  nourish  or  delight 
the  body,  nor  in  the  abundance  of  pleasure,  nor  in  the  happiness  of  soul 
separated  from  body.  Since  then  man's  end  cannot  be  attained  on  earth, 
it  must  be  attained  hereafter  in  a  state  where  body  and  soul  are  again  united 

(24,  25). 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body,  Athenagoras  bears  testimony 
to  a  few  distinguishable,  if  not  distinct  conceptions.  There  is,  in  the  first 
place,  the  reiterating  conception  that,  in  the  resurrection,  the  same  souls 
are  given  to  the  same  bodies,  and  that  the  bodies  which  have  moulded 
away  and  have  been  dissolved  and  reduced  to  nothing  will  be  reconstructed. 
"The  resurrection  of  dissolved  bodies'"  is  a  very  common  e.xpression. 
The  resurrection  body  is  to  be  exactly  like  the  mundane  body,  absolutely 
identical  with  it  in  the  material  parts  and  particles  which  compose  it.  What 
has  reverted  to  nature  through  the  natural  processes  of  dissolution  will 
again  be  reinstated.  No  matter  where  the  elements  have  gone,  and  into 
what  they  have  been  converted,  they  will,  at  the  appointed  time,  be  brought 
back  by  the  power  and  will  of  God  to  their  former  place  in  the  body  (2-6). 

I  i)  tGiv  biakvdivTwv  crufxdTwv  dvdcrTaffis. 


34  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN  ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

And  it  is  frankly  admitted  that  the  elements  which  constitute  the  body 
can  be  assimilated  into  animals,  but  not  into  the  tissues  of  human  bodies; 
so  that  there  can  be  no  serious  objection  to  the  \'iew  that  our  present  bodies 
can  be  restored  in  substance  and  form  (6).  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea 
of  a  body,  in  the  resurrection,  different  from  the  present  one  is  repeatedly 
emphasized  in  clear  and  unmistakable  terms.  The  resurrection  body 
will  throw  aside  its  corruptibility  and  also  bring  about  other  changes; 
so  that  identity  of  material  between  the  two  bodies  is  unthinkable.  It  is 
stated  that  neither  the  blood  contributes  anything  to  life,  i.e.,  the  resurrec- 
tion life;  nor  does  the  phlegm,  nor  the  bile,  nor  the  breath  (7);  that  the 
constant  change  of  the  body  proves,  first,  that  it  cannot  be  determined 
what  the  real  body  is,  and,  secondly,  that  the  resurrection  is  simply  one 
more  link — the  last — in  a  "hierarchy"  of  changes.  There  is  a  constant 
change  in  the  flesh  and  the  fat  as  well  as  the  humors,  in  time  of  health  and 
more  often  in  time  of  sickness,  a  gradual  change  from  a  human  seed  to  a 
living  being,  a  continual  change  in  age,  appearance,  and  size,  and  finally, 
another  change  at  the  time  of  the  resurrection  process  (7,12,  17).  "For  the 
resurrection  is  a  species  of  change  and  the  last  of  all,  and  a  change  for  the 
better  of  what  still  remains  in  existence  at  that  time"  (12).  This  change  is  so 
radically  conceived  that  in  one  place  the  author  even  compares  the  risen 
body  to  a  heavenly  spirit  {Apol.  31).  That  which  rises,  however,  is  not 
mere  spirit,  but  body  or  flesh,  so  changed  that  the  term  "heavenly  spirit" 
is  used  to  describe  it.  It  is  flesh,  not  pure  spirit;  and  yet  it  is  not  flesh, 
that  is,  it  is  changed  and  transformed  flesh.  Such  must  be  the  meaning 
of  the  following  passage: 

We  are  persuaded  that  when  we  are  removed  from  the  present  life  we  shall 
live  another  life,  better  than  the  present  one,  a  heavenly,  not  earthly  (since  we 
shall  abide  near  God,  and  with  God,  free  from  all  changes  and  suffering  in  the  soul, 
not  as  flesh,  even  though  we  shall  have  flesh,  but  as  heavenly  spirit),  or  falling 
with  the  rest,  a  worse  one  and  in  fire.' 

Athenagoras  presents  a  very  interesting  phenomenon.  He  sets  forth, 
on  the  one  hand,  a  resurrection  of  the  body  in  the  material  sense — setting 
it  forth  so  literally  as  to  explain  how  the  very  dissolved  particles  will  all  be 
reinstated  in  the  risen  body;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  depicts  the  nature 
of  the  resurrection  body,  in  language  and   description  which  well-nigh 

I  Apol.  31:  TreTrelfffMeda  rov  ivraOOa  diraWayivres  ^lov  plov  irtpov  pLuxreadai,  dfiel- 
vova  ij  Karb.  t6v  ivddSe  Kal  iirovpdvLOV,  oiiK  iirlyeiov  (ijs  Slv  yuerd  OeoD  Kal  <ri)v  de<^  dKXiveU 
Kal  dnadeii  tt)v  \pvx'hv,  ovx  ws  crdpKes,  kSlv  ^x^M'f,  a^^'  <«'S  ovpdviov  wvevfia,  ixevovfiev),  f) 
(rvyKaTaTriiTTOvTfs  rots  Xoiirois  x^^P'"'"-  '^''■'  ^"^  Trvpds. 


THE   APOLOGISTS  35 

approach  the  Pauline  conception.  We  labor  in  vain  to  find  a  synthesis 
between  these  two  conceptions.  The  only  solution  for  this  incongruity 
lies  in  his  eclecticism.  It  has  been  said  that  he  was  the  first  of  eclectics. 
In  his  theology  there  is  an  unmistakable  trace  of  the  Platonic  and  the 
Peripatetic  combined  with  Christian  elements;  so  that,  with  reference  to 
the  resurrection,  we  naturally  expect  to  find  divergent  views.  In  fact, 
he  holds  to  the  idea  of  recollections,  one  of  the  Platonic  arguments  used  in 
substantiation  of  the  soul's  immortality.  His  eclectic  spirit  caused  him  also 
to  employ  Pauline  conceptions  and  ideas,  which  ill  accord  with  the  current 
and  traditional  conceptions  of  the  resurrection.  He  knew  Paul  and  alludes 
to  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians  in  several  instances.  Funda- 
mentally, however,  Athenagoras  held  to  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  which, 
because  of  his  eclecticism,  is  often  overlaid  by  other  ideas  of  a  resurrection. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  makes  a  few  references  to  the  resurrection. 
He  believes  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  evidently  in  the  material  sense. 
He  says  nothing  of  the  relation  of  the  resurrection  body  to  the  mundane 
body.  His  interest  is  in  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  rather  than  in  a  discus- 
sion of  its  nature.  The  resurrection,  he  argues,  is  in  no  wise  unreasonable, 
and  those  who  do  not  believe  in  it  now  will  nevertheless  believe  when  the 
resurrection  shall  have  taken  place.  Again,  God  is  able  to  bring  about 
a  resurrection,  evinced  by  the  fact  that  if  he  first  brought  man  into  being 
out  of  nothing  and  since  then  every  human  being  out  of  a  small  seed  into 
life,  he  is  also  able  to  remake  him  in  the  resurrection  (Autol.  1. 8, 13).  "And 
can  you  not  believe  that  the  God  who  made  you  is  also  able  to  make  you 
afterwards."  The  real  ground,  however,  for  the  resurrection  is  in  two 
considerations:  first,  the  testimony  from  analogy,  and,  secondly,  the  testi- 
mony from  the  Sacred  Scripture  (Old  Testament).  The  unbelieving 
say.  Show  me  one  who  has  been  raised  from  the  dead,  that  seeing  I  may 
beheve.  To  this  Theophilus  replies  that  the  heathen  believe  in  the  con- 
tinued life  of  Hercules  and  Esculapius,  but  if  we  should  tell  of  such  a  case 
they  would  be  incredulous.  Then  he  continues  to  present  his  arguments 
from  analogy  in  proof  of  the  resurrection.  He  points  to  the  different 
seasons,  day  and  night,  seeds  and  fruits:  a  seed  of  wheat,  for  example,- 
or  of  the  other  grains,  when  it  is  cast  into  the  earth  first  dies  and  rots 
away,  then  is  raised  and  becomes  a  stalk  of  corn.  The  heavenly  bodies, 
likewise,  show  forth  a  resurrection:  there  is  the  "resurrection  of  the  moon," 
which  "wanes  and  dies  and  rises  again."  Then  there  is  a  resurrection 
going  on  in  man  himself:  it  often  happens  that  through  sickness  one  loses 
his  flesh  and  his  strength,  but  through  God's  power  he  is  again  restored 
to  his  former  state  (I.  14).     Finally,  he  lays  still  more  stress  upon  prophetic 


36  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION  IN  ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

Scripture,  in  which  all  things  were  foretold  and  among  them  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body. 

The  resurrection  of  which  Theophilus  speaks  is  a  general  resurrection 
of  all  men.  The  nature  and  form  of  the  resurrection  body  is  not  described, 
but  it  is  tacitly  assumed  that  it  is  a  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense. 
At  least,  that  is  what  the  unbelievers  to  whom  he  wrote  understood  by  it,  since 
they  asked  for  the  restoration  of  a  man  that  they  might  believe.  The 
analogies  seem  to  point  in  the  same  direction;  so  also  the  expression  "raise 
thy  flesh  immortal  with  thy  soul"  (I.  7).  The  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
resurrection  is  taken  from  Christian  tradition,  with  little  reference  to  the 
New  Testament.  There  are  no  traces  of  the  Pauline  doctrine — although 
the  analogies  may  have  been  suggested  by  his  analogy  of  the  seed — and 
no  references  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

The  extant  fragments  of  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  furnish  us  with 
a  few  rhetorical  phrases  on  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  expressing  the  current 
conception.  The  expression,  "he  rose  from  the  dead,"  or,  "the  place 
of  the  dead,"  is  very  common.  Thus  it  is  said,  "he  arose  from  the  dead 
and  ascended  to  the  heights  of  the  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father"  {On  Passion).  References  are  also  made  to  his  resurrec- 
tion, descent  into  Hades,  his  ascension,  and  session  at  the  right  hand,  and 
to  the  relief  of  prisoners  in  Hades.  "He  arose  from  the  place  of  the  dead 
and  raised  up  men  from  the  earth — from  the  grave  below — to  the  heights 
of  heaven"  {On  Faith).  Jesus  rose  in  a  bodily  form;  and  his  body  did 
not  even  suffer  dissolution  {On  Passion).  Again,  the  collocation  of  words 
in  regard  to  the  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus  are  such  as  have  always 
been  associated  with  a  fleshly  resurrection.  Melito  does  not  draw  his 
conception  from  any  particular  portion  of  Scripture,  but  adheres  rather 
to  Christian  tradition.  He  also  tries  to  show  that  the  coming  of  Christ 
was  necessary  for  our  resurrection. 

Tatian  in  his  Oration  to  the  Greeks  imparts,  more  or  less  indirectly, 
unique  conception  of  the  resurrection.  He  approaches  it  altogether 
rom  a  philosophical,  or  rather  a  psychological  point  of  view;  and  indeed 
his  doctrine  of  the  soul  is  anomalous.  The  resurrection  doctrine  is  worked 
out  from  the  existing  relation  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  and  the  relation 
sustained  by  these  three  to  God.  Man,  he  says,  consists  of  three  parts 
flesh,  soul,  and  spirit.  The  flesh  is  that  which  incloses  the  soul,  is  equiv- 
alent to  body,  and  is  the  property  of  men,  but  not  of  God  and  demons 
(15).  Spirit  is  of  three  grades;  first,  there  is  the  spirit  pervading  matter, 
secondly,  the  spirit  assimilated  to  the  soul,  and  thirdly,  the  divine  spirit 
apart  from  its  works  (4).     There  are  in  man  thus  two  kinds  of  spirits,  the 


THE   APOLOGISTS  37 

one  which  is  common  to  all  matter,  and  the  divine  spirit  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Another  name  for  the  natural  spirit  in  man  is  soul,  and  soul  is  material, 
so  that  in  the  trichotomy  of  man  soul  is  equivalent  to  natural  spirit  (ttvcu- 
uara  vXlko.).  Natural  spirits  are  material  though  not  fleshly.  Soul  is 
nothing  else  but  a  label  given  to  the  material  spirit  in  man.  Demons 
are  spoken  of  as  material  creatures  (12).  Their  structure  may  be  desig- 
nated as  spiritual,  but,  in  reality,  they  are  like  fire  and  air,  which  are  the 
reflections  of  matter  (15).  Hence  the  soul  or  material  spirit  is  an  ethereal 
substance  like  air  or  fire.  But  not  all  spirits  are  material,  or  rather  not 
everything  spiritual  is  material.  God  is  a  spirit,  and  he  is  immaterial; 
the  soul  is  a  spirit  but  material,  since  it  is  created.  There  is  also  a  spirit 
superior  to  matter,  greater  than  the  soul  (7),  the  representative  of  God,  his 
image,  his  spirit  (13,  15),  which  dwells  or,  at  least,  can  dwell  in  man,  which 
might  be  termed  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Out  of  this  psychology  of  Tatian  arose  his  conception  of  the  resur- 
rection. The  argument  in  one  place  runs  as  follows:  God  is  incorrupt- 
ible, man  partakes  of  God,  therefore  man  is  incorruptible  (7).  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  Tatian  teaches  more  than  simple  personal  immortality;  and 
his  argument  is  exceedingly  complex  at  those  points  in  which  he  suggests 
a  resurrection  of  the  body  as  well  as  the  soul.  Soul,  or  material  spirit, 
is  the  bond  connecting  God's  spirit,  pure  and  undefiled,  with  the  flesh. 
Now  unless  the  soul  or  material  spirit  is  in  relationship  with  the  immaterial 
spirit  or  Holy  Spirit,  the  soul  will  pass  into  eternal  dissolution,  and  the 
body  or  the  flesh  as  well;  since  the  soul  is  the  bond  between  them.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  soul  or  material  spirit  acquires  the  knowledge  of  God 
it  dies  not,  although  for  a  time  it  be  dissolved  (13).  Again,  he  teaches 
that  the  soul,  or  material  spirit  is  interwoven  with  the  body  or  flesh  and 
manifests  itself  through  the  body.  "Neither  could  it  [the  soul]  appear 
by  itself  without  the  body,  nor  does  the  flesh  rise  again  without  the  soul "  (15). 

Tatian  has  no  room  for  an  intermediate  place,  and  yet  souls  at  death 
do  not  immediately  pass  to  their  final  abode.  Souls — remembering  that 
they  are  material — as  well  as  bodies  are  dissolved,  but  both  will  rise  again. 
He  speaks  of  a  double  death  for  the  soul  in  the  case  of  those  who  know  not 
God.  There  is  a  resurrection  of  bodies  after  the  consummation  of  all  things, 
not  a  return  of  certain  cycles  as  the  Stoics  teach,  but  a  "resurrection  once 
for  all;"  and  the  purpose  of  this  resurrection  is  to  pass  judgment  upon 
men  (6).  The  resurrection  of  the  former  physical  bodies  is  also  vividly 
stated  in  the  following  passage: 

Even  though  fire  destroy  all  traces  of  my  flesh,  the  world  receives  the  vaporized 
matter;  and  though  dispersed  through  rivers  and  seas,  or  torn  in  pieces  by  wild 


38  IDEA  OF  RESURRECTION  IN  ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

beasts,  I  am  laid  up  in  the  storehouses  of  a  wealthy  Lord.  And,  although  the 
poor  and  the  godless  know  not  what  is  stored  up,  yet  God  the  sovereign,  when  he 
pleases,  will  restore  the  substance  that  is  visible  to  him  alone  to  its  pristine  con- 
dition (6). 

Tatian  does  not  undertake  to  prove  anything  from  prophecy,  neither 
does  he  fall  back  on  the  teachings  of  either  Jesus  or  Paul  or  any  of  the 
New  Testament  books  to  substantiate  the  resurrection.  He  devotes  a 
relatively  large  part  to  a  consideration  of  it,  but  it  is  mostly  indirectly,  and 
approached  through  his  peculiar  psychology.  He  does  not  mention  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  neither  his  second  coming,  nor  a  millennium;  and 
has  no  place  for  Hades. 

The  apologists  took  great  pains  in  setting  forth  the  Christian  article 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  which  was  so  offensive  to  Graeco-Roman 
culture.  Only  in  a  few  cases  did  they  compromise  with  their  opponents; 
as  a  rule,  they  were  driven  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  the  influence  of 
Hellenism  was  purely  negative.  With  the  exception  of  Tatian,  they  all 
prove  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  in  about  the  same  manner.  The  value 
of  their  labors  is  twofold:  (i)  they  set  forth  the  resurrection  in  clear  and 
unmistakable  terms;  (2)  they  brought  into  existence  an  array  of  argumen- 
tative material. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  GNOSTICS 

Gnosticism  deserves  an  important  place  in  a  discussion  of  the  resur- 
rection in  the  ante-Nicene  period.  In  the  first  place,  a  knowledge  of 
Gnostic  tenets  concerning  the  resurrection  is  a  necessary  introduction  to 
Irenaeus  and  TertuUian;  and  in  the  second  place,  Gnosticism  itself  is  a 
phase  of  Christian  history,  and  as  such  it  deserves  attention,  too.  Gnosti- 
cism is  simply  an  acute  Hellenization  of  Christianity.  With  reference  to 
the  resurrection  Gnostic  tenets  are  most  significant.  It  was  the  idea  of 
the  resurrection,  as  much  as  anything  else,  which  divided  the  early  church 
into  two  hostile  camps.  The  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  was  a 
characteristic  mark  of  the  orthodox  church;  while  the  denial  of  it  was  a 
characteristic  mark  of  every  Gnostic  sect.  The  former  advocated  a  resur- 
rection of  body  and  soul;  the  latter  "disallowed  the  resurrection  affecting 
the  whole  man."' 

In  an  effort  to  restate  Gnosticism,  we  are  at  once  confronted  with  a 
serious  difficulty.  The  writings  of  the  Gnostics  have  perished,  and  we 
know  their  tenets  only  through  their  opponents,  who  may  often  have 
misunderstood  them  and  given  undue  emphasis  to  certain  minor  state- 
ments. Pistis  Sophia  is  practically  the  only  monument  left  coming  from 
the  hand  of  a  Gnostic  himself.  In  it  are  contained  a  few  valuable  hints 
on  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

References  to  an  incipient  Gnosticism  denying  the  resurrection  appear 
even  in  the  New  Testament.  Paul  found  such  a  tendency  in  the  midst 
of  the  Christian  community  in  Corinth.  "How  say  some  among  you 
[Christians]  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead?"  (I  Cor.  15:12). 
In  II  Tim.  2:17,  18,  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus  are  named  as  persons  who 
say  that  "the  resurrection  is  past  already."^  The  resurrection  is  under- 
stood by  them  not  in  an  eschatological,  but  in  a  spiritual,  or  moral,  sense. 
Similar  traces  of  a  denial  of  a  resurrection  among  Christians  were  found  in 
Ignatius,  in  Clement  II  (9:1),  Polycarp  (7:  i),  and  in  Hermas  (Sim.  V.  7). 
These  early  documents  give  the  impression  that  the  denial  of  a  fleshly 
resurrection  played  into  the  hands  of  the  libertines,  and  that  as  a  result  many 
abuses  of  the  flesh  ensued.    If  there  is  to  be  no  resurrection  of  the  body  then 

'  Iren.  Contra  Haereses  V.  31:    Universam  reprobant  resurrectionem. 

2  T7]v  dvaffTacnv  ijdr;  yeyov^var,   some  MSS  omit  Trjv. 

39 


40  IDEA    OF   RESURRECTION    IN   ANTENICENE    PERIOD 

the  flesh,  in  accordance  with  their  logic,  can  have  free  rein.  This  is  brought 
out  still  more  strikingly  in  the  Acts  of  Paid  and  Tlieda.  This  book  was 
written  to  show  that  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  a  reward  for  self-control 
and  virginity.  Demas  and  Hermogenes,  who  are  represented  as  being 
hostile  to  this  principle  and  to  Paul,  reflect  the  libertine  Gnosticism  in 
these  words:  "We  shall  teach  thee  that  the  resurrection  of  which  this  man 
speaks  has  taken  place,  because  it  has  already  taken  place  in  the  children 
which  we  have."  Herein  is  a  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  in  the 
eschatological  sense  and  an  affirmation  of  it  in  a  moral  sense.  What  is 
meant,  however,  by  the  resurrection  continuing  in  our  children  cannot  be 
definitely  determined,  since  this  is  the  only  instance  in  early  literature  of 
such  a  doctrine. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  also  a  denial  of  the  resurrection  on  the  part 
of  those  who  were  not  primarily  drawn  to  an  indulgence  of  the  flesh,  but 
whose  way  of  thinking  and  conception  of  things  in  general  caused  them  to 
look  upon  the  resurrection  as  a  vulgar  and  inconceivable  doctrine.  They 
were  serious  in  their  denial  of  a  fleshly  resurrection,  and  it  was  a  matter 
of  life  and  death  for  them.  This  classic  Gnosticism  was  a  potent  force  in 
the  second  century;  and  it  is  thus  important  to  consider  these  various 
Gnostic  writers  and  sects  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  each  one 
held  respecting  the  after-life. 

Menander,  a  disciple  of  Simon  Magus,  strenuously  opposed  a  bodily 
resurrection  in  the  material  sense.  The  body,  he  taught,  was  the  work 
of  an  angel,  and  was  not  created  by  the  supreme  God.  Hence  it  is  to  be 
considered  evil  and  is  unworthy  of  a  resurrection  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  5). 
His  disciples,  he  declares,  obtain  the  resurrection  by  being  baptized  into 
him ;  whereupon  they  die  no  more  but  remain  in  the  possession  of  immortal 
youth  (Iren.  I.  23:5).  Saturnius  also  taught  that  angels  formed  all  things, 
and  among  them  man.  These  angels  tried  to  form  him  after  the  similitude 
of  a  certain  light  which  flashed  over  the  world;  but  man  wriggled  on  the 
ground  like  a  worm,  until  a  spark  of  life  was  sent  forth  which  gave  him  an 
erect  posture  and  made  him  live.  This  spark  of  life,  after  man's  death, 
returns  to  those  things  which  are  of  the  same  nature  with  itself;  while  the 
rest  of  the  body  is  decomposed  into  its  original  elements.  A  resurrection 
of  the  flesh,  in  accordance  with  this  method  of  creation  and  death,  is  utterly 
impossible  (Iren.  I.  24:1). 

Basilides  alleged  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  possessed  no  reality  and  that 
consequently  it  can  have  no  resurrection.  Jesus,  he  asserts,  was  an  incor- 
poreal power,  and  transfigured  himself  as  he  pleased,  and  then  ascended 
into  heaven  without  even  being  crucified.      Salvation  belongs  to  the  soul 


THE   GNOSTICS  41 

alone,  for  the  body  is  by  nature  subject  to  corruption  (Iren.  I.  24:4,  5; 
Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  2).  Valentinus,  another  prominent  Gnostic,  taught 
with  reference  to  Christ  that  his  flesh  had  qualities  peculiar  to  itself;  and 
that  he  conversed  with  his  disciples  for  eighteen  months  after  his  resurrec- 
tion (Tert.  Against  Valentinus  26;  Iren.  I.  3:2).  This  fact  was  undoubt- 
edly taken  from  a  spurious  writing,  known  as  the  Gospel  of  Truth  (Iren. 
III.  11:9).  The  Valentinian  account  of  the  last  things  is  decidedly  original. 
On  the  last  day  Acamoth  enters  Pleroma  and  the  Demiurge  moves  from 
the  celestial  Hebdomad  into  the  chamber  vacated  by  his  mother.  Human 
beings  will  have  to  pass  through  the  same  stages,  until  they  reach 
their  final  goal,  except  the  wicked,  who  are  annihilated.  Though  the 
flesh  of  the  righteous  is  not  saved,  yet  their  souls  are  saved  and  are  con- 
veyed to  the  middle  regions,  where  the  Demiurge  now  dwells.  Into  the 
Pleroma  nothing  of  the  animal  nature  is  admitted.  There  the  souls  put 
off  everything  except  the  intellectual,  and  the  intellectual  spirits  alone  enter 
the  Pleroma  (Tert.  Against  Valentinus  31;  Iren.  II.  29:3).  The  Ophites, 
another  sect,  taught  that  at  the  crucifixion  a  spirit  from  above  was  sent  into 
Jesus,  "who  raised  up  his  body  again,  but  only  the  physical  and  spiritual 
since  the  mundane  parts  lie  in  the  earth."  That  which  rose  was  not  the 
former  body,  and  the  disciples  were  mistaken  in  imagining  that  it  was 
(Iren.  I.  30:13). 

Marcion's  attitude  on  the  resurrection  is  shown  by  Tertullian  in  the 
following  words:  "Marcion  does  not  in  any  wise  admit  the  resurrection  of 
the  flesh,  and  it  is  only  the  salvation  of  the  soul  which  he  promises;  con- 
sequently the  question  which  he  raises  is  not  concerning  the  sort  of  })ody, 
but  the  very  substance  thereof"  {Against  Marcion  V.  10).  There  are 
two  reasons  why  Marcion  figures  as  such  a  strong  opponent  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  diametrically  opposed  to 
everything  Jewish  and  to  Jewish  influences.  He  believed  the  God  of  the 
Jews  to  be  the  Demiurge,  and  denied  the  whole  Jewish  eschatology  and 
the  reality  of  the  messianic  kingdom.  In  the  second  place,  his  opposition 
grew  out  of  his  dualism.  Flesh  and  spirit,  he  held,  were  antagonistic  forces, 
created  by  two  different  gods:  flesh  was  created  by  the  evil  god,  spirit 
by  the  good  god.  Lucan,  a  disciple  of  Marcion,  sets  forth  again  a  different 
view.  He  asserted  that  neither  the  body  nor  the  soul  rises,  but  a  third 
substance  precipitated  from  these — thus  reducing  nature  in  accordance 
with  the  principle  of  Aristotle,  and  substituting  something  else  in  lieu  of 
it  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  2;  pseudo-Tert.).  Apelles,  likewise  a  pupil  of 
Marcion,  also  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh;  and  with  reference  to 
Christ,  he  said  that  his  body  was  of  sidereal  substance,  which  he  assumed 


42  IDEA    OF    RESURRECTION   IN    ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

in  his  descent,  and  which  was  deposited  again  among  the  stars  in  the 
resurrection  (pseudo-Tert.)-  The  Carpocratians,  Sethians,  Cainites, 
and  other  Gnostics  need  not  be  discussed,  since  they  made  no  further  con- 
tribution to  the  subject,  holding  merely  to  the  general  contention  that  the 
soul  will  rise,  but  that  the  body  will  pass  to  eternal  dissolution.  The  author 
of  Pistis  Sophia  maintains  that  Jesus,  after  rising  from  the  dead,  had 
spent  eleven  years  with  his  disciples  instructing  them,  during  which 
time  he  had  only  the  appearance  of  a  body.  In  the  twelfth  year  he 
ascended,  and  the  ascension,  which  is  that  of  the  spirit,  is  set  forth  very 
elaborately.  Jesus  withdraws  to  certain  realms,  and  then  reappears, 
and  withdraws  again,  until  finally  the  last  heaven  is  reached. 

Thus  all  the  Gnostics,  although  they  blankly  deny  the  resurrection  of 
the  flesh,  predicate  in  some  way  or  other  the  soul's  immortality.  Now 
this  persistence  of  man's  spiritual  nature  in  the  after-life  was  variously 
conceived.  In  general,  they  denied  an  intermediate  place  from  which 
the  soul  had  to  be  transferred,  at  some  future  day,  to  another  realm;  but 
taught  that  immediately  after  death  the  soul  enters  into  its  final  abode 
(cf.  Justin  Dia.  80;  Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  22).  In  a  resume  of  Gnostic 
doctrines,  Irenaeus  presents  us  with  a  helpful  summary.  He  writes  (V. 
19:   2): 

And  still  further,  some  affirm  that  neither  their  soul  nor  their  body  can 
receive  eternal  life,  but  merely  the  inner  man.  Moreover,  they  will  have  it  that 
this  [inner  man]  is  that  which  is  the  understanding  (sensum)  in  them,  and  which 
they  decree  as  being  the  only  thing  to  ascend  to  "the  perfect."  Others  [maintain] 
....  that  while  the  soul  is  saved,  their  body  does  not  participate  in  the  sal- 
vation which  comes  from  God . 

Through  an  inductive  study  of  the  Gnostic  tenets  as  imbedded  in  the 
writings  of  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  the  apologists,  it  may  safely  be  asserted 
that  they  maintained  a  spiritual  survival  after  death  in  about  four  ways: 
(i)  the  soul  in  Mo  survives,  and  at  death  immediately  passes  into  its 
final  place  (Basilides  and  others);  (2)  only  the  inner  sense  or  understanding 
(sensiis)  survives  (Valentinus) ;  (3)  a  third  substance  passes  into  the  other 
world,  which  is  neither  body  nor  soul  (Lucan) ;  (4)  a  body  survives,  but  not 
the  former  mundane  body  (Ophites). 

The  Gnostics  did  not  drop  the  word  "resurrection' '  out  of  their  vocabu- 
lary. It  would  have  been  an  unwise  policy  for  them  to  disregard  altogether 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  expression  "resurrection  of  the  dead."  They 
used  it  in  three  different  senses.  In  the  first  place,  they  employed  it  eschato- 
logically,  declaring,  in  accordance  with  their  tenets,  that  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  simply  means  that  the  soul  is  immortal,  and  being  immortal. 


THE   GNOSTICS  43 

it  can  be  thought  of  as  having  a  resurrection  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  18). 
In  the  second  place,  they  used  it  in  a  moral  or  ethical  sense,  asserting  that 
the  resurrection  takes  place  now — that  is,  as  soon  as  men  come  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  19,  22) — hence  the  expression 
"the  resurrection  is  past  already."  Then,  in  the  third  place,  "resurrection 
of  the  dead"  was  used  allegorically.  Some  maintained  that  it  meant  an 
escape  out  of  the  world,  "since,  in  their  view,  the  world  is  the  habitation 
of  the  dead — that  is,  of  those  who  know  not  God;"  others  maintained 
that  it  actually  meant  an  escape  out  of  the  body  itself,  "since  they  imagine 
that  the  body  detains  the  soul  when  it  is  shut  up  in  the  death  of  a  worldly 
life,  as  in  a  grave"  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  19). 

While,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Gnostics  strenuously  held  to  the  survival 
of  spiritual  personality  after  death;  on  the  other  hand,  they  emphatically 
and  repeatedly  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  This  was  the  starting 
point  of  their  whole  system  of  theology,  according  to  Tertullian,  who  states 
that  they  start  from  this  point,  and  from  it  "sketch  the  first  draft  of  their 
dogmas  and  afterward  add  the  details"  (Resur.  of  Flesh  4,  11).  Their 
denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  grew  out  of  presuppositions  funda- 
mental to  their  entire  system.  A  very  close  analogy  between  Gnostic 
and  heathen  opposition  is  noticeable.  In  fact,  it  is  an  impossibility  to 
separate  sharply  between  specific  Gnostic  and  specific  heathen  arguments. 
The  Fathers  recognized  this,  and  declared  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  Gnostic  teachings  on  the  resurrection  and  those  of  the  heathen, 
A  comparison  of  the  arguments  of  the  heathen  opponents,  as  reflected  in 
pseudo-Justin  and  Athenagoras,  with  the  Gnostic  opponents,  as  reflected 
in  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  confirms  this  observation.  The  Gnostics 
denied  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  on  the  ground  that  the  flesh  is  an  ignoble 
and  unclean  substance — ignoble  as  to  its  origin  and  casualities,  "unclean 
from  its  first  formation  of  the  dregs  of  the  ground,  unclean  afterwards  from 
the  mire  of  its  own  seminal  transmission,  worthless,  weak,  covered  with 
guilt,  laden  with  misery,  full  of  trouble."  They  held  to  a  dualism 
between  body  and  soul,  matter  and  spirit.  The  former  was  created  either 
by  an  angel  or  angels,  or  the  Demiurge;  the  latter  by  the  good  God. 
Redemption  was  the  process  of  freeing  the  soul  forever  from  its  material 
bondage.  Christ's  resurrection  could  therefore  be  only  a  resurrection 
of  his  spirit.  The  material  character  of  his  resurrection  was  denied  from 
two  standpoints.  In  the  first  place,  there  were  those  who  denied  the  reality 
of  his  flesh,  saying  that  it  was  impossible  for  Jesus  to  assume  flesh,  since 
flesh  was  evil.  In  this  case  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  at  once  excluded. 
This  position  was  prominent  in  the  systems  of  Marcion  and  BasiHdes. 


44  IDEA    OF    RESURRECTION    IN    ANTENICENE    PERIOD 

In  the  second  place,  it  was  asserted  by  some,  especially  by  Valentinus 
and  Apelles,  that  this  body  was  of  an  entirely  different  creation  from  that 
of  man :  it  was  sidereal  and  was  again  deposited  among  the  stars  after  the 
resurrection. 

With  reference  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  bearing  on  the  resur- 
rection, the  Gnostics  have  been  charged  with  an  allegorical  interpretation. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  some  of  their  interpretations  are  allegorical;  but  the 
bulk  of  those  referring  to  the  resurrection,  at  least,  as  far  as  they  are  col- 
lected in  the  secondary  sources,  is  truer  to  a  historico-grammatical  exegesis 
than  the  orthodox  interpretation  of  that  day.  They  are  charged  with 
allegorical  interpretations  sometimes  where  there  is  no  allegorical  inter- 
pretation. Thus,  for  instance,  Tertullian  charges  them  with  torturing 
Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  Valley  of  Dry  Bones  into  a  proof  of  an  allegorical 
sense.  The  Gnostics  interpreted  correctly  that  this  vision  was  simply 
an  image  and  not  a  true  prediction  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  it  taught 
the  political  restoration  of  the  nation  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh  30) ;  while 
the  same  incident  was  used  incorrectly  by  the  orthodox  Christians  to 
defend  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  Jesus  was  interpreted  by  the  Gnostics 
as  having  taught,  merely  and  consistently,  a  resurrection  of  the  soul.  His 
answer  to  the  Sadducees  was  for  them  an  exclusive  proof  of  a  spiritual 
resurrection.  Aside  from  Marcion,  who  somewhat  changed  Luke's  text 
to  suit  his  purpose,  the  Gnostics  held  that  the  "likeness  to  angels"  (iVayyeAot 
eiVtv)  debarred  altogether  a  bodily  resurrection.  They  also  made  use 
of  other  sayings  of  Jesus,  which  they  interpreted  in  conformity  with  their 
tenets.  However,  the  clearest  and  the  strongest  witness  they  found  in 
Paul.  They  used  the  same  passages  to  substantiate  their  position  that 
the  Fathers  used.  They  evidently  laid  great  emphasis  on  the  phrase, 
"Therefore  we  are  always  confident  and  fully  aware,  that  while  we  are 
at  home  in  the  body  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord"  (Tert.  Resur.  of  Flesh 
43).  The  Pauline  term  "spiritual  body"  was  for  them  another  proof  of 
the  survival  of  the  soul  without  the  body.  And  the  term  "natural  body" 
(a-wfw.  if/vxi-Kov)  they  held  to  be  merely  a  paraphrase  of  soul  (</'wxv)  >  ^^  the 
expression  "it  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  Their 
greatest  proof-text  was  I  Cor.  15:50:  "Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Flesh  and  blood  were  interpreted,  not  in  a  spiritual, 
but  in  a  literal  sense,  and  correctly  so.  That  this  was  a  great  proof-text 
of  the  Gnostics  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Tertullian  devotes  four  chapters 
{Resur.  of  Flesh  48-51)  and  Irenaeus  three  (V.  9-1 1)  to  the  refutation  of 
their  interpretation  of  it.  The  Gnostics  were  charged  with  first  formulat- 
ing their  doctrines  and  then  going  to  Scripture  and  interpreting  it  in  accord 


THE   GNOSTICS  45 

with  them.  Yet  in  spite  of  this  criticism  we  cannot  but  feel  that  they  must 
have  been  greatly  influenced  by  Jesus  and  Paul.  Their  method  of  inter- 
pretation was  not  simply  an  attempt  to  conform  Scrii)ture  to  their  tenets, 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  Scripture  rather  contributed  to  the  formulation 
of  their  system.  Whether,  therefore,  accidentally  or  otherwise,  they  never- 
theless came  very  close  to  the  results  of  modern  historical  interpretation 
of  Scripture  bearing  on  the  resurrection;  even  though  with  reference  to 
other  subjects  this  statement  in  no  wise  holds  good. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  GREAT  POLEMICISTS 

In  opposition  to  the  spiritualistic  and  metaphysical  beliefs  about  the 
soul  is  the  elaborate  treatment  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  by  Irenaeus 
and  Tertullian,  dating  from  the  latter  part  of  the  second  and  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century.  They  revived,  on  the  resurrection,  the  ideas  and  argu- 
ments of  the  apologists,  and,  in  addition,  sought  elaborate  scriptural  proofs 
for  their  position.  The  importance  attached  to  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh, 
at  this  time,  is  evident  also  from  the  Old  Roman  Symbol^  out  of  which 
arose  our  Apostles'  Creed.  The  resurrection,  ascension,  and  session  of 
Jesus  are  mentioned  in  it;  but  its  greatest  significance  lies  in  the  article 
referring  to  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  The  article,  "the  resurrection  of 
the  flesh, "^  phrased  as  it  was  with  the  emphasis  upon  flesh,  is  a  clear  protest 
against  the  denial  of  the  salvability  of  the  flesh.  In  the  Old  Roman  Sym- 
bol this  article  stood  by  itself  at  the  close  of  the  creed.  It  was  evidently 
appended  to  this  three-membered  creed  based  upon  the  threefold  baptis- 
mal formula.  It  is  an  article  entirely  unrelated  to  what  precedes.  All 
this  simply  shows  the  tremendous  importance  of  the  article  in  the  eyes  of 
the  author  or  authors.  Scarcely  another  article  in  the  creed  was  consid- 
ered of  such  importance  as  the  one  which  originally  read:  "I  believe  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  flesh."  The  import  of  this  article  of  faith  comes 
to  view  more  fully  in  our  study  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 

Irenaeus  undertook  a  systematic  exposition  and  overthrow  of  all  here- 
sies. In  this  polemic  the  resurrection  holds  an  important  place.  In  his 
last  book  of  Against  Heresies,  he  deals  almost  exclusively  with  the  last 
things.  The  denial  of  the  reality  of  the  flesh  of  Christ,  involving  a  denial 
of  his  fleshly  resurrection,  and  the  denial  of  the  salvation  of  the  flesh,  mak- 
ing the  fleshly  resurrection  of  men  impossible — all  this  is  part  of  the  thesis 
against  which  his  argument  on  the  resurrection  is  directed  (V.  i  :2;  31  :i). 
He  also  reflects  Christian  tradition  in  the  form  of  a  primitive  creed  in  at 
least  three  instances.  He  observes  that  in  the  Catholic  church  itself 
divergent  views  exist  on  the  nature  of  the  resurrection,  especially  in  its 

I  Originated  between  150-175  a.  d.  See  McGifFerl,  The  Apostles'  Creed.  Va- 
riant forms  of  this  Symbol  are  found  in   Iren.  I.  10:1;   IV.  33:7;   V.  20:1. 

^  ffapKhs  &vd<TTaaiv.  Our  English  translation  of  it,  "resurrection  of  the  body," 
somewhat  obscures  the  original  signification  of  this  article. 

46 


THE   GREAT  POLEMICISTS  47 

relation  to  the  millennium  (V.  31:1).  There  can  be  no  question  but  that 
he  appreciates  and  defines  accurately  the  generally  accepted  orthodox 
position.  A  noteworthy  passage  on  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
and  of  men,  and  the  relation  which  the  two  sustain,  is  recorded  in  V.  31 :  i,  2. 

But  the  case  was,  that  for  three  days  he  dwelt  in  the  place  where  the  dead 
were,  as  the  prophet  says  concerning  him.  .  .  .  And  the  Lord  himself  says, 
"As  Jonas  remained  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly,  so  shall 
the  Son  of  man  be  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  ....  And  on  his  rising  again, 
the  third  day,  he  said  to  Mary,  who  was  the  first  to  see  and  to  worship  him,  "touch 
me  not,  for  I  have  not  yet  ascended  to  the  Father;  but  go  to  the  disciples,  and  say 
unto  them,  I  ascend  unto  my  Father,  and  unto  your  Father."  If,  then,  the  Lord 
observed  the  law  of  the  dead,  that  he  might  become  the  first-begotten  from  the 
dead,  and  tarried  until  the  third  day  "in  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth;"  then  after- 
ward rising  in  the  flesh,  so  that  he  even  showed  the  print  of  the  nails  to  his  dis- 
ciples, he  thus  ascended  to  the  Father For  as  the  Lord  went  away  in  the 

midst  of  the  shadow  of  death,  where  the  souls  of  the  dead  were,  yet  afterward 
arose  in  the  body,  and  after  the  resurrection  was  taken  up  [into  heaven],  it  is 
manifest  that  the  souls  of  his  disciples  also,  upon  whose  account  the  Lord  under- 
went these  things,  shall  go  away  into  the  invisible  place  allotted  to  them  by  God 
and  there  remain  until  the  resurrection,  awaiting  that  event;  then  receiving  their 
bodies,  and  rising  in  their  entirety,  that  is  bodily,  just  as  the  Lord  arose,  they 
shall  come  thus  into  the  presence  of  God.  "For  no  disciple  is  above  the  Master, 
but  every  one  that  is  perfect  shall  be  as  his  Master."  As  our  Master,  therefore, 
did  not  at  once  depart,  taking  flight  [to  heaven],  but  awaited  the  time  of  his  resur- 
rection prescribed  by  the  Father,  which  had  been  also  shown  forth  through 
Jonas,  and  rising  again  after  three  days  was  taken  up  [to  heaven];  so  ought  we 
also  to  await  the  time  of  our  resurrection  prescribed  by  God  and  foretold  by  the 
prophets,  and  so,  rising,  be  taken  up,  as  many  as  the  Lord  shall  account  worthy 
of  this  [privilege]. 

The  contention  of  the  entire  passage  is  to  establish  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh,  (i)  The  resurrection  of  a  material  organism  is  deduced  from 
the  gospel  narrative,  and  dependence  is  shown  on  one  of  those  gospels — 
the  Gospel  of  John' — in  which  the  appearances  of  a  material  body  are 
very  prominent.  (2)  The  characteristic  repetitions — "Jesus  tarrying  in 
Hades  for  three  days"  or  "until  the  third  day" — are  deliberately  used  as 
an  indirect  argument  for  a  fleshly  resurrection.  The  Gnostics  (Valen- 
tinians)  taught  that  the  soul  of  man  passes  upon  his  death  immediately 
into  heaven.  Irenaeus,  however,  insists  that  this  was  not  the  case  with 
Jesus;    for  he  remained  in  Hades  until  the  appointed  time,  after  which 

'  John  20: 17,  20,  27.     Cf.   Iren.  V.   7:1   for  a  similar  argument  based  on  this 
gospel,  in  which  reference  is  made  to  the  prints  in  his  risen  body. 


48  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

he  arose  in  the  flesh,  manifested  himself  to  his  disciples  in  the  flesh,  and 
then  ascended  into  heaven  in  the  flesh.  (3)  The  stages  through  which 
Christ  passed  are  the  stages  through  which  men — believers — must  pass. 
Jesus  was  an  example  of  what  the  resurrection  of  men  shall  be.  The 
disciples  will  not  fare  better  than  their  Master.  They  will  also  at  death 
go  to  Hades  and  there  remain  until  the  time  of  the  resurrection,  when 
they  shall  arise  in  their  entirety,  that  is,  with  their  bodies,  even  as  Christ 
who  did  not  leave  his  body  upon  the  earth.  (4)  The  ascension  as  well  as 
the  resurrection  is  one  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  former  body.  The  language 
of  the  passage  conveys  no  other  idea  than  that  the  ascension  body  is  similar 
to  the  resurrection  body;  which  will  be  true  of  men,  even  as  it  was  of  Jesus. 

The  ideas  of  the  resurrection  as  set  forth  in  the  above  passage  are 
in  perfect  accord  with  the  rest  of  the  teachings  of  Irenaeus.  The  resur- 
rection is  discussed  in  other  connections,  and  is  approached  from  other 
points  of  view,  and  arrived  at  through  other  arguments.  At  this  point 
reference  may  also  be  made  to  another  event  in  the  post-resurrection  life 
of  Jesus — his  second  coming.  This  is  to  be  in  the  same  flesh  in  which 
he  tabernacled  among  men  (III.  16:8).  Jesus  came  in  the  flesh,  the  heavens 
were  opened  and  he  was  received  in  the  flesh,  and  he  "shall  also  come  in 
the  same  flesh  in  which  he  suffered." 

Irenaeus  insists  more  strenuously  and  consistently  than  any  writer 
thus  far  examined  that  the  risen  body  is  the  exact  reproduction  of  the 
former  body,  both  as  to  form  and  as  to  substance.  God,  he  declares,  con- 
fers a  proper  soul  on  each  individual  body  and  in  the  resurrection  the 
same  body  shall  unite  again  with  its  own  soul  and  spirit.  The  doctrine 
of  metempsychosis  has  no  place  (II.  33:1-5),  for  the  very  reason  that 
punishment  must  be  inflicted  and  judgment  pronounced  on  the  soul  with 
its  own  and  only  body.  But  it  is  not  merely  the  same  bodies  that  will  be 
restored,  but  also  the  same  substances  in  the  bodies.  "The  same  sub- 
stance of  flesh  which  has  become  breathless  and  dead  shall  also  be  quick- 
ened" (V.  12:2).  And  in  one  of  the  fragments,'  it  is  specifically  stated 
that  the  bodies  after  death  decompose,  but  without  perishing;  that  the 
remains,  which  are  mixed  with  the  earth,  are,  in  the  resurrection,  recast 
and  restored  to  their  original  form;  and  that  between  the  mundane  and 
the  risen  body  there  is  only  one  difi'erence,  and  that  is  in  reference  to  cor- 
ruption, the  former  being  subject  to  decay,  because  of  primeval  disobedience, 
which  is  not  true  of  the  risen  body.  Deformities  also  will  not  continue 
as  is  evident  from  Christ's  healings,  the  object  of  which  was  to  restore 

"Frag,  xii;  this  seems  to  be  a  quotation  from  the  lost  treatise  of  Irenaeus,  On 
the  Resurrection. 


THE   GREAT   POLEMICISTS  49 

infirm  parts  to  their  original  condition,  so  that  they  would  be  in  a  position 
to  obtain  salvation  (V.  12:6;  13:1).  The  wicked,  on  the  other  hand, 
will  rise  with  their  deformities  and  diseases  and  sufferings,  with  bodies 
always  corruptible. 

Irenaeus  also  proves  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  from  the  Eucharist 
(IV.  18:5;  V.  2:2,  3).  This  is  an  original  argument  in  proof  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh,  though  it  was  slightly  alluded  to  heretofore  by  Ignatius 
{Eph.  20).  Bread  and  wine,  which  are  both  earthly  and  heavenly,  are 
the  material  through  which  a  seed  of  immortality  enters  into  man.  The 
bread  and  wine  through  the  word  of  God  become  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  And  as  such  the  Eucharist  so  nourishes  the  flesh  that  total  dis- 
solution becomes  impossible.  "When,  therefore,  the  mingled  cup  and 
the  manufactured  bread  receive  the  word  of  God,  and  the  Eucharist  of 
the  blood  and  body  of  Christ  is  made,  from  which  things  the  substance  of 
our  flesh  is  increased  and  supported,  how  can  they  affirm  that  the  flesh  is 
incapable  of  receiving  the  gift  of  God."'  A  true  redemption  of  "the  body 
of  flesh"  is  thus  inferred  from  its  sacramental  union  with  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  Our  bodies,  like  Christ's,  shall  be  raised  incorruptible; 
"for  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  of  his  bones."  Believers 
are  made  one  with  him  by  sacramentally  receiving  him,  which  accordingly 
makes  the  dissolution  of  the  body  impossible.  Nothing,  he  concludes 
is  more  natural  than  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  when  one  has  partaken 
of  Christ's  flesh. 

The  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  attributed  also  to  the  power  of  God. 
There  is  nothing  inherent  in  the  substance  of  the  body  which  will  cause  it 
to  rise;  but  it  rises  through  the  power  of  God  (V.  6:2),  spoken  of  sometimes 
as  a  gift  from  God  (IV.  9:2).  Then  there  is  ample  proof  that  God  has 
this  power  to  raise  the  dead.  The  fact  of  creation  assures  re-creation; 
for  it  is  easier  to  reinstate  the  body  than  to  have  created  it  originally  out  of 
the  dust  (V.  3:2).  If  God  quickens  and  sustains  the  flesh  in  this  present, 
temporal  life  he  will  certainly  do  the  same  in  the  eternal  life  (V.  3:3). 
Another  proof  is  the  lengthened  period  of  life  granted  to  the  patriarchs; 
the  translation  of  Enoch  and  Elijah ;  the  preservation  of  Jonah  in  the  whale, 
and  of  Ananias,  Azarias,  and  Misael  in  the  furnace  of  fire  (V.  5).  Again, 
if  God  were  not  to  raise  dead  bodies  then  he  would  be  either  weak  or  power- 
less, or  else  envious  or  malignant;  but  none  of  these  attributes  belongs 
to  him  (V.  4). 

'  Irenaeus  Contra  Haerescs,  V.  2:3:  'Oirbre  ovv  koX  rb  K€Kpatx4vov  -n-oT-qpiov  kolI  6 
yeyov(i)s  ipros  iiriS^xerai  rhv  \6yov  tow  6eov  kuI  ytverai  17  evxc-piffTla  crufia  Xpiffrov  (et  fit 
Eucharislia  sanguinis  et  corporis  Christi)  iK  tovtwv  di  aij^ei  Kai  avvlaraTai  17  t^j  <rapKi>s 
rjiJLUV  iiirSffTaffis-    irm  Scktiktjv  fir)  elvai  \^ov<ti  ttjv  cdpKa  rijs  dajpedi  tov  6(ov. 


50  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

The  most  significant  and  original  approach  to  the  resurrection  is  from 
the  standpoint  of  psychology  and  the  interpretation  of  Paul.  In  the  sixth 
chapter  of  the  fifth  book,  Irenaeus  begins  to  set  forth  a  trichotomy.  Before 
this  he  had  presented  a  dichotomy.  "Man  is  a  mixed  organization  of 
soul  and  flesh"  is  his  usual  designation  of  the  make-up  of  man  (cf.  IV. 
Pref.;  III.  22:1).  This  division  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit  to  which  he  now 
adheres,  he  undoubtedly  derived  from  Paul;  inasmuch  as  he  makes  a 
dehberate  reference  to  I  Thess.  5:23  at  the  beginning  of  this  section.  He 
contends  that  salvation,  that  is,  the  resurrection,  is  bestowed  on  the  whole 
nature  of  man,  who  is  a  "commingling  and  union  of  all  these."  Hence 
it  follows  that  the  flesh,  as  well  as  the  soul  and  the  spirit,  will  persist  in  a 
life  beyond  the  grave.  He  calls  it  blasphemy  to  assert  that  "the  temple 
of  God,"  "the  members  of  Christ"  (I  Cor.  3:16,  17),  which  are  the  flesh, 
should  not  partake  of  salvation,  but  that  they  should  be  reduced  to  per- 
dition. Again,  he  takes  up  Paul's  phrase,  "quicken  your  mortal  bodies," 
and  shows  that  "mortal  bodies"  has  reference  neither  to  souls,  since 
souls,  which  are  equivalent  to  the  breath  of  life,  are  incorporeal;  nor  to 
spirits,  since  spirit  is  simple  and  non-composite,  subject  to  no  decomposi- 
tion and,  in  fact,  the  quickening  life  itself;  but  to  the  flesh,  for  it  alone 
can  be  decomposed  and  quickened.  He  comments  on  I  Cor.,  chap.  15, 
but  reads  into  the  Pauline  conception  a  resurrection  of  the  body  in  the 
material  sense.  He  uses  the  term  "spiritual  body,"  and  defines  it  as  the 
body  in  which  the  Spirit  dwells.  The  change  from  the  psychical  body  to 
the  spiritual  is  through  the  Spirit's  instrumentality,  whereby  the  body 
undergoes  no  particle  of  change,  save  that  the  source  from  which  it  receives 
its  life  is  changed.  At  great  length  (V.  9-1 1)  does  he  expound  the  words 
in  I  Cor.  15:50,  "flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 
This  phrase  was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  slogan  of  the  Gnostics  who 
used  it  to  disprove  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Irenaeus,  on  the  other 
hand,  insists  that  "flesh  and  blood"  is  not  to  be  taken  in  the  literal  mean- 
ing of  the  terms;  but  that  the  words  apply  to  the  carnal  deeds  which  pervert 
man  to  sin  and  deprive  him  of  life  (V.  14:4).  .The  expression,  he  main- 
tains, simply  means  that  "mere  flesh  and  blood  devoid  of  the  Spirit  of 
God"  and  good  works  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  refers  to 
fleshly  works  rather  than  flesh  strictly  so  called.  "Unless  the  word  of  God 
dwell  with,  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  be  in  you,  and  if  ye  shall  live  frivol- 
ously and  carelessly  as  if  ye  were  this  only,  viz.,  mere  flesh  and  blood,  ye 
cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  (V.  9). 

This  same  truth  is  also  enforced  by  his  trichotomous  psychology. 
Spirit  is  that  which  preserves  and  fashions  the  man;    flesh  is  that  which 


THE   GREAT  POLEMICISTS  5 1 

is  united  and  formed;  while  between  these  two  stands  the  soul,  which 
sometimes  follows  the  spirit  and  is  raised  up  by  it,  and  sometimes  sympa- 
thizes with  the  flesh  and  falls  into  carnal  lusts  (V.  9:1).  Hence,  "mere 
flesh  and  blood"  exist  when  the  soul  has  become  a  sharer  of  the  flesh  and 
a  neglecter  of  the  spirit.  The  comparison  drawn  from  the  wild  olive  tree, 
the  quality  of  which  though  not  the  nature,  is  changed  by  grafting,  also 
indicates  that  the  Spirit  of  God  enforcing  the  human  spirit  will  not  trans- 
form the  substance  of  flesh. 

The  millennium  receives  some  treatment  in  the  last  five  chapters  of  the 
last  book.  Just  as  it  is  an  appendix  to  this  book,  so  is  it  also  an  appendix 
to  his  thought;  and  it  does  not  in  the  least  alter  the  position  which  he  has 
thus  far  assumed  on  the  resurrection.  The  millennium  is  not  an  integral 
part  of  the  resurrection  idea  as  it  was  with  Justin.  The  resurrection  of 
the  just,  or  the  first  resurrection,  in  this  millennium  appendix,  involves 
a  resuscitation  of  dead  bodies. 

To  summarize  the  teachings  of  Irenaeus  very  briefly,  we  would  say: 
(i)  his  discussion  on  the  resurrection  is  largely  polemic,  directed  against 
those  who  denied  a  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense;  (2)  he 
sets  forth  with  stern  consistency  what  he  terms  "the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh;"  which,  in  his  mind,  is  a  resuscitation  of  the  former  body,  being 
identical  with  it  as  to  both  form  and  substance;  (3)  there  is  no  difference 
between  the  resurrection  body  of  Jesus  and  of  believing  men;  (4)  literary 
dependence  is  shown  on  the  resurrection  narratives  of  the  Gospels  of  John 
and  Luke  and  the  present  conclusion  of  Mark;  and  out  of  these  gospels 
the  crass  materialism  alone  is  selected.  He  also  makes  the  first  real  attempt 
to  interpret  Paul  on  the  resurrection;  and  yet,  at  every  turn,  he  interprets 
him  as  teaching  a  fleshly  resurrection  of  the  body.  The  term  "spiritual 
body"  is  a  material  body  in  which  the  Spirit  dwells,  and  the  phrase  "flesh 
and  blood"  is  devitalized  into  ethical  terms;  (5)  the  arguments  in  sub- 
stantiation of  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  are  many  and  various:  they  are 
scriptural,  psychological,  and  theological.  Messianism  is  no  longer  a 
controlling  thought,  and  chiliasm  is  a  mere  appendix.  Apart  from  scrip- 
tural proofs,  the  competency  of  God,  salvation  belonging  to  the  whole  man, 
the  nourishment  in  the  Eucharist,  and  the  possession  of  God's  spirit  are 
the  most  significant  arguments. 

We  now  come  to  Tertullian,  whose  treatment  of  the  resurrection  is 
the  fullest  of  any  of  the  ante-Nicene  Christian  Fathers.  Like  pseudo- 
Justin  and  Athenagoras,  he  devoted  a  treatise  exclusively  to  the  resurrection 
entitled,  On  the  Resurrection  of  the  Flesh,^  in  which  the  resurrection  received, 

I  De  Resurrectione  Carnis. 


52  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

in  an  orderly  manner,  a  more  comprehensive  discussion  than  it  had  in 
any  of  the  preceding  monographs.  The  resurrection  is  also  discussed 
in  many  of  his  other  wTitings.  The  resurrection  to  which  he  holds  is  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  in  the  gamut  of  his  thinking  it  is  an  important 
doctrine.  He  calls  it  the  Christian  trust  {fiducia),  "a  truth  which  God 
reveals,  but  the  crowd  derides."  He  also  asserts  that  the  very  oneness 
of  the  Godhead  is  closely  related  to  this  doctrine;  "for  if  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  be  denied,  [that  prime  article  of  the  faith]  is  shaken;  if  it  be 
asserted,  it  is  established."'  He  explicitly  states  that  he  who  denies  this 
doctrine  which  is  professed  by  Christians,  is  not  a  Christian,  but  a  heretic. 

Now  the  specific  ideas  which  Tertullian  held  on  the  resurrection  can 
best  be  presented  in  following  his  line  of  argument  as  recorded  in  his  work 
On  the  Resurrection  of  the  Flesh,  to  which  additional  material,  when  in 
order,  will  be  inserted  from  his  other  works,  either  to  confirm,  or  to  elabo- 
rate, or  to  check.  This  book  is  a  polemic  from  beginning  to  end.  It  is 
directed  against  those  who  maintain  that  the  world  was  created  by  the 
Demiurge,  who  was  opposed  to  the  supreme  God;  that  the  flesh  or  body 
of  man  is  inherently  corrupt  and  worthless;  and  that,  therefore,  the  body 
cannot  rise  again,  while  the  soul  alone  is  capable  of  immortality.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  asserted  that  the  world,  with  all  its  errors,  does  not  ignore 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  While  a  few  wise  men  have  denied  immor- 
tality, yet  most  of  them  predicate  a  future  state  for  the  soul.  And  they 
even  unconsciously  give  testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  The 
common  people,  in  their  banquets  and  sacrifices  for  the  dead,  and  the 
philosophers,  through  the  doctrine  of  metempsychosis,  bear  indirect 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  revelation.  "They  knocked  at  the  door  of  truth, 
although  they  entered  not."  (1-3;^  Against  Mar  cionW.  9;  OnNationsI.  19). 

The  first  real  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  the  dignity  of  the 
body  (4-10).  Tertullian  lays  hold  of  almost  every  argument  possible  to 
set  forth  this  truth.  Former  writers  had  made  reference  to  this  fact,  but 
in  none  was  it  completely  developed.  It  has  a  great  apologetic  value, 
and  Tertullian  was  conscious  of  this,  knowing  that  the  disparagement  of 
the  flesh  was  the  first  "battering-ram  of  the  heretics."  If  it  can  be  shown, 
he  argued,  that  the  flesh  is  worthful  instead  of  loathsome,  and  if  it  can  be 
pointed  out  that  Hellenic  dualism  is  fictitious,  then  the  first  great  premise 
of  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  established. 

That  the  flesh  is  dignified  and  worthful,  and  not  evil,  is  shown  in  various 

'  Op.  cit.  2:  "Sicut  enim  negata  carnis  resurrcctione  concutitur,  ita  vindicata  con- 
stabilitur." 

»  Unless  otherwise  stated,  all  references  are  to  De  Rcsur.  Carnis. 


THE   GREAT  POLEMICISTS  53 

ways.  It  is  worthful  because  it  was  created  by  God,  and,  in  fact,  it  received 
a  special  creation  at  his  hand.  We  should  not  think  of  the  lowliness  of 
the  material  out  of  which  the  llesh  was  made,  but  of  the  dignity  and  skill 
of  the  maker;  just  as  the  Olympian  Jui)iter  of  ivory  is  the  world's  supreme 
deity — not  because  of  the  bulk  of  the  elephant  from  which  the  material  was 
taken,  but  on  account  of  the  renown  of  Phidias.  jNIoreover,  the  flesh  is 
not  merely  a  minister  and  servant  of  the  soul,  but  it  turns  out  to  be  also 
its  associate  and  coheir.  "And  if  all  this  in  temporal  things,  why  not 
also  in  things  eternal?"  In  one's  relation  to  Christianity  the  flesh  holds 
an  important  position.  "Flesh  is  the  very  condition  on  which  salvation 
hinges."  Thus  baptism,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  imposition  of  hands, 
partaking  of  the  Eucharist,  as  well  as  virginity,  widowhood,  and  restraint 
are  all  done  through  the  flesh.  Scripture  magnifies  the  flesh  under  the 
terms  "temple  of  God"  and  "members  of  Christ."  Attached  to  the 
dignity  of  the  flesh  lies  the  competency  of  God  as  a  proof  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh.  And  this  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  if  God  was  competent 
to  create,  he  is  also  competent  to  recreate,  which  is  the  easier  matter.  It 
is  much  easier  to  maintain  a  continuance  than  to  have  imparted  a  beginning. 
Similarly,  the  argument  from  analogy — the  change  of  day  and  night, 
the  changes  in  the  moon,  the  changes  in  the  seasons,  the  transformation 
in  the  plants,  and  the  symbol  of  the  phoenix — is  a  proof  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  (11,  12;  cf.  Against  Mar cionW .  10;  Apol.  48).  Through  nature 
God  proclaimed  the  resurrection  before  he  wrote  it  in  Scripture.  There 
is  also  a  sufficient  cause  for  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  in  the  future  judg- 
ment of  man  (14).  This  judgment  involves  the  entire  human  being: 
"Now,  since  the  entire  man  consists  of  the  union  of  two  natures,  he  must 
therefore  appear  in  both,  as  it  is  right  that  he  should  be  judged  in  his 
entirety."  The  flesh  participates  with  the  soul  in  all  human  conduct, 
and  it  will  receive  punishment  or  reward  in  accordance  with  its  deeds  (15). 
Should  this  not  be  so,  then  God  would  have  to  be  either  idle  or  unjust; 
but  this  cannot  be  attributed  to  God.  Tertullian  does  not  hold  that  the 
flesh  will  have  to  be  present  at  the  final  judgment,  because  otherwise  the 
soul  would  be  incapable  of  sufl'ering  pain  or  pleasure  being  incorporeal. 
He  asserts  that  the  soul  per  se  is  capable  of  joy  and  sorrow  in  Hades,  even 
without  a  body  (17) ;  although  there  is  considerable  variation  in  his  language 
upon  this  subject.  In  his  Apology  (48)  and  Testimony  of  the  Soul  (4), 
he  speaks  as  if  the  soul  could  not  suffer  when  separated  from  the  body; 
but  in  the  Resurrection  of  the  Flesh  and  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Soul  he  main- 
tains that  the  soul  is  corporeal  and  capable  of  sensation.  This  is  inferred 
from  the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus,  in  which  he  supposes  that  souls 


54  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

are  corporeal,  since  they  could  be  imprisoned  and  seen  and  touched  (cf. 
Sotd  7).  In  Hades  souls  either  undergo  punishment  for  the  evil  deeds 
that  were  executed  without  the  flesh,  or  refreshment  for  the  pious  acts  so 
executed  (cf.  Sotd  58).  Granting,  then,  that  a  soul  is  corporeal  and  sus- 
ceptible to  torments  and  blessings,  nevertheless,  in  spite  of  this  provision, 
he  insists  most  strenuously  that  this  is  not  sufficient,  but  that  there  must 
be  somehow  and  at  some  time  a  union  of  soul  with  its  former  body  in  order 
that  full  compensation  may  be  made  for  the  deeds  done  through  and  by 
the  flesh. 

Even  though  Tertullian  finds  a  great  presumption  in  favor  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh  from  a  general  consideration  apart  from  Scripture, 
nevertheless,  he  considers  all  this  merely  prefatory,  and  falls  back  on  an 
exposition  of  Scripture  as  the  strongest  proof  of  his  position.  He  denounces 
the  Gnostics  for  an  allegorical  interpretation  in  matters  pertaining  to  the 
resurrection;  and  yet  himself  uses  and  justifies  an  allegorical  interpretation 
sometimes  when  it  suits  his  purpose.  He  also  insists  that  figurative  senses 
have  their  foundation  in  literal  facts;  that  "vacuity  is  not  a  consistent 
basis  for  a  similitude,  nor  does  nonentity  form  a  suitable  foundation  for 
a  parable. "  In  his  work.  On  the  Resurrection  of  the  Flesh,  a  systematic 
attempt  is  made  to  interpret  the  Old  as  well  as  the  New  Testament  on  the 
subject  of  the  resurrection.  Though  most  of  his  interpretations  are  crude 
and  incorrect  they  are  nevertheless  significant  for  this  historical  study. 
He  takes  up  the  scriptural  expression,  "the  resurrection  of  the  dead" 
(resurredio  mortuorum) ,  and  explains  to  what  substance  these  terms  apply 
(18-22).  He  refers  them  to  the  rising  of  that  which  has  fallen,  and  that 
which  has  fallen  is  not  the  soul,  but  the  flesh.  "It  is  the  flesh  which  falls 
by  death;  and  accordingly  it  derives  its  name,  cadaver,  'corpse'  from 
cadendo,  'falling.'"  In  Against  Marcion,  the  same  idea  is  brought  forth 
with  still  greater  completeness. 

"To  rise,"  indeed,  can  be  predicated  of  that  which  has  never  fallen  down,  but 
had  already  been  always  lying  down.  But  "to  rise  again"  is  predicable  only  of 
that  which  has  fallen  down;  because  it  is  by  rising  again,  in  consequence  of  its 
having  fallen  down,  that  it  is  said  to  have  re-risen.  For  the  syllable  re-  always 
implies  iteration  (or  happening  again). '^ 

Tertullian  finds  an  unquestionable  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh  in  the  Christian  apocalypses  (24-27).     In  his  description  of  the  last 

I  Adv.  Marcionem  (V.  9):  "Surgere  enim  potest  dici  et  quod  omnino  non  ce- 
cidlt,  quod  semper  retro  iacuit.  Resurgere  autem  non  est  nisi  eius  quod  cecidit;  itcrum 
enim  surgendo,  quia  cecidit,  resurgere  dicitur.  RE  enim  syllaba  iterationi  semper 
adhibetur." 


THE   GREAT   POLEMICISTS  55 

days  and  the  Lord's  coming,  a  fleshly  resurrection  is  always  assumed. 
Such  language,  he  maintains,  could  not  have  been  used  of  the  soul,  inas- 
much as  these  apocalypses  project  the  resurrection  into  some  future  time, 
and  imply  that  the  soul  does  not  attain  unto  its  destiny  immediately  at 
death.  In  his  use  of  Old  Testament  material  he  makes  many  allegorical 
interpretations.  The  terms  "Kingdom  of  God"  and  "Millennium" 
were  spiritualized.  This  is  very  significant  since  we  should  have  expected 
the  same  crass  materialism  here  that  is  adhered  to  in  other  instances;  but 
he  explicitly  states  that  those  terms  which  are  associated  with  a  millennium 
must  not  be  taken  literally  (26).  He  finds  a  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  in  the  restoration  of  the  hand  of  Moses  (38),  in  Ezekiel's  vision 
of  the  Valley  of  Dry  Bones,  and  in  the  preservation  of  Jonah  in  the  whale  (32). 

In  commenting  upon  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  TertuUian  declares  that 
the  bodily  character  of  the  resurrection  is  avowedly  assumed  wherever 
the  word  resurrection  occurs.  The  words,  "The  Son  of  Man  came  to 
seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost"  (Luke  19:10),  are  referred  to  the 
whole  man — soul  and  flesh  (33,  34).  The  destruction  of  the  body  and 
soul  in  hell  (Matt.  10:28)  also  pre-supposes  a  resurrection,  for,  unless  the 
body  were  raised  again,  "it  would  be  impossible  for  the  flesh  to  be  killed 
in  hell"  (35).  Christ's  refutation  of  the  Sadducees  is,  however,  of  more 
vital  interest  for  our  purpose  (36).  He  states  that  the  Sadducees  denied 
a  resurrection  both  of  the  soul  and  of  the  flesh,  and  that  Jesus  affirmed 
this  verity  in  the  precise  sense  in  which  they  were  denying  it;  that  is,  he 
affirmed  the  resurrection  of  the  two  natures  of  man.  "Equal  unto  the 
angels"  means  a  transference  into  an  angelic  state  by  the  putting  on  of 
the  raiment  of  incorruption  (cf.  also  62).  Christ's  acts  were  no  ostentatious 
exhibition  of  power  for  a  temporary  kindness,  but  in  order  to  put  in  safe 
keeping  (sequestrare)  the  belief  in  a  future  resurrection,  and  to  prove  that 
that  resurrection  would  be  a  resurrection  of  both  natures  (substantia)  (38). 

He  refers  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  he  finds  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  amply  attested.  In  his  preaching  before  the  Sadducees,  before 
Agrippa,  and  before  the  Athenians,  Paul,  it  is  alleged,  could  not  have 
taught  anything  else  but  a  bodily  resurrection  in  a  material  sense;  which, 
being  an  absolutely  new  doctrine,  was  thereupon  opposed  (39).  The 
largest  space,  however,  in  his  interpretation  of  Scripture  with  reference 
to  the  resurrection  is  devoted  to  Paul's  epistles  (40-63).  The  inner  and 
the  outer  man,  the  old  man  and  the  new  man,  the  figure  of  baptism,  and 
various  other  teachings  are  marshaled  together  in  support  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh.  The  passages  most  potent  for  his  purpose  are  II  Cor.,  chap.  5, 
and  I  Cor.,  chap.  15;  and  in  the  interpretation  of  these  the  real  nature  and 


56  IDEA    OF   RESURRECTION    IN   ANTENICENE    PERIOD 

character  of  the  resurrection  body  are  set  forth.  In  II  Cor.,  chap.  5,  he 
finds  a  distinct  reference  to  a  resurrection  of  a  corporeal  body.  The  expres- 
sion, "clothed  upon,"  presupposes  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  which  can 
be  clothed,  since  clothing  can  only  be  put  over  a  material  body.  However 
this  act  of  being  clothed  upon,  with  a  kind  of  heavenly  supen'esture,  makes 
the  bodies  incorruptible  and  fit  for  their  heavenly  habitation  (41).  In 
Against  Marcion  (V.  12)  this  passage  in  conjunction  with  I  Cor.  15:^3 
receives  its  fullest  exposition  as  follows: 

In  this  tabernacle  of  our  earthly  body  we  do  groan,  earnestly  desiring  to 
be  clothed  upon  with  the  vesture  which  is  from  heaven,  if  so  be  that,  having  been 
unclothed,  we  shall  not  be  found  naked;"  in  other  words,  shall  regain  that  of  which 
we  have  been  divested,  even  our  body.  And  again  he  says:  "We  that  are  in  this 
tabernacle  do  groan,  not  as  if  we  were  oppressed  with  an  unwillingness  to  be 
unclothed,  but  (we  wish)  to  be  clothed  upon."  He  here  says  expressly,  what 
he  touched  but  lightly  in  his  first  epistle  (where  he  wrote):  "The  dead  shall 
be  raised  incorruptible"  (meaning  those  who  had  undergone  mortality),  "and 
we  shall  be  changed"  (whom  God  shall  find  to  be  yet  in  the  flesh).  But  those 
shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  because  they  shall  regain  their  body — and  that  a 
renewed  one,  from  which  shall  come  their  incorruptibility;  and  these  also  shall 
in  the  crisis  of  the  last  moment,  and  from  their  instantaneous  death,  whilst  en- 
countering the  oppressions  of  anti-Christ,  undergo  a  change,  obtaining  therein 
not  so  much  a  divestiture  of  the  body  as  a  "clothing  upon"  with  the  vesture  which 
is  from  heaven.  So  that  whilst  these  shall  put  on  over  their  (changed)  body  this 
heavenly  raiment,  the  dead  also  shall  for  their  part  recover  their  body,  over  which 
they  too  have  a  supervesture  to  put  on,  even  the  in  corruption  of  heaven;  because 
of  these  it  was  that  he  said:  "this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this 
mortal  must  put  on  immortality."  The  one  put  on  this  (heavenly)  apparel, 
when  they  recover  their  bodies;  the  others  put  it  on  as  a  supervesture,  when  they 
indeed  hardly  lose  them  (in  the  suddenness  of  their  change). 

Like  Irenaeus,  he  interprets  "flesh  and  blood"  in  an  ethical  sense, 
asserting  over  and  over  that  it  has  reference  not  to  the  substance  of  the 
flesh  but  to  the  works  thereof  (48-51 ;  Against  Marcion  V.  10-15).  Paul's 
analogy  of  the  seed  is  to  teach,  not  that,  in  the  resurrection,  a  different  body 
is  to  arise  from  that  which  is  sown  in  death,  but  that  "the  very  same  flesh 
which  was  once  sown  in  death  will  bear  fruit  in  resurrection-life — the 
same  in  essence,  only  more  full  and  perfect;  not  another,  although  re- 
appearing in  another  form"  (52).  Paul  does  "not  deny  a  community  of 
substance,  but  a  parity  of  prerogative"  in  his  illustration  of  certain  cxami)les 
of  animals  and  heavenly  bodies  (52).  Likewise,  the  term  "spiritual  body" 
denotes  a  body  fully  possessed  of  the  spirit,  and  has  no  reference  to  a  change 
in  substance  (53;  Against  Marcion  V.  to). 


THE    GREAT   POLEMICISTS  57 

Thus  far  we  have  observed  TertulUan's  arguments  for  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  as  derived  from  a  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the  flesh,  the 
nature  of  God,  and  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  When  we  turn  to  his  treat- 
ment of  the  soul,  and  attempt  to  approach  the  resurrection  from  the  stand- 
point of  his  psychology,  we  come  to  an  anticlimax  and  an  inconsistency. 
In  his  treatise,  On  the  Soul,  he  sets  forth  the  Stoic  conception  of  the  soul's 
corporeality.  He  asserts  that  the  view  of  the  Stoics  with  reference  to  the 
soul  is  correct;  viz.,  that  the  soul  is  corporeal  and  even  material  (8);  that 
it  has  a  body  of  a  quality  and  kind  peculiar  to  itself,  such  as  form,  limita- 
tion, and  "the  triad  of  dimensions — length,  breadth,  and  height;"  that 
the  shape  is  that  of  the  body,  the  color,  transparent  light  (9);  that  it  can 
think  and  feel  and  exist  apart  from  the  body  (9;  58);  that  it  is  invisible 
to  the  flesh,  but  visible  to  the  spirit  (8).  Evidently  Tertullian  is  Stoic  as 
well  as  Christian;  and  certainly  he  does  not  correlate  nor  synthesize  his 
idea  of  a  corporeal,  and  even  material,  soul  with  his  fundamental  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh. 

What  now  is  the  precise  nature  of  this  resurrection  body  which  he  terms 
the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  ?  There  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  stern  insistence 
upon  the  restoration  of  the  former  body.  "Souls  are  to  receive  back  at 
the  resurrection  the  self -same  bodies  in  which  they  died."  They  are  also 
to  resume  the  same  conditions  and  the  same  ages  {Soul  56).  He  concludes 
his  special  work  on  the  resurrection  by  stating  the  belief  which  to  him  is 
the  only  true  and  well-founded  belief — "and  so  thy  flesh  shall  rise  again, 
wholly  in  every  man,  in  its  own  identity,  and  in  its  absolute  integrity."''  On 
the  other  hand,  he  speaks  of  certain  changes  which  will  come  about  in 
the  resurrection  body.  It  is  significant  to  notice  that  whenever  language 
is  used  giving  the  impression  of  a  change  in  the  risen  body,  it  is  while  he 
is  either  making  use  of  Jesus'  answer  to  the  Sadducees,  or  of  Paul's  two 
classic  passages  on  the  subject.  It  is  very  evident  therefore  that  what 
sometimes  seems  to  be  an  inconsistency  in  his  presentation  is  simply  an 
attempt  to  conform  to  some  of  the  expressions  of  Jesus  and  Paul.  After 
all,  the  change  of  which  he  speaks  is  merely  a  change  in  the  unaltered  sub- 
stance of  the  flesh.  Change  he  insists  does  not  destroy.  Incidentally 
he  mentions  (42)  a  discovery  in  Carthage  which  furnishes  him  with  a 
proof  that  death  changes  but  docs  not  destroy  our  mortal  ])odies.  When 
the  men  were  laying  the  foundation  of  the  Odeum,  they  disturbed  some 
ancient  graves,  and  the  horror-stricken  people  looked  upon  bones  v/hich 
after  some  five  hundred  years  were  still  sound,  and  hair  which  still  retained 

I  De  Resiir.  Carnis  63:  "  Resurget  igitur  caro,  et  quidem  omnis,  et  quidem  ipsa, 
et  quidem  integra." 


58  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

its  perfume.  "Changes,  conversions,  and  reformations  will  necessarily 
take  place  to  bring  about  the  resurrection,  but  the  substance  of  the  flesh 
will  still  be  preserved  safe"  (55).  There  will  be  no  change  in  form  and 
appearance  of  the  risen  body,  from  the  mundane  body,  save  that  mutilated 
bodies  will  be  restored  whole  (56),  and  that  some  organs  will  lose  their 
functions.  In  short,  the  only  change,  it  seems,  which  the  resurrection 
body  will  assume  is  summed  up  in  the  word  "incorruptibility;"  and,  in 
reality,  this  is  not  at  all  different  from  the  conception  of  Irenaeus.  The 
deflection  from  this  position  is  seeming,  not  real.  Fundamentally  he  held 
that  bodies  will  rise  exactly  as  they  were  put  in  the  grave,  with  the  same 
form  and  with  the  same  component  parts  and  particles;  and  that  at  a  cer- 
tain stage  in  the  resurrection  the  righteous  will  be  clothed  upon  by  a  super- 
vesture  from  heaven,  which  will  in  no  wise  change  the  flesh,  but  only  make 
it  perfect,  incorruptible,  whole,  and  fit  for  heaven. 

There  is  also  in  his  thought  a  relation  between  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
and  the  resurrection  of  men.  The  flesh  of  Christ  which  came  through 
the  virgin  birth  rose  again  in  absolute  identity.  And  as  is  this  resurrec- 
tion so  is  also  our  resurrection.  TertuUian  shows  at  the  conclusion  of  his 
treatise,  On  the  Flesh  of  Christ,  that  there  is  a  close  connection  between 
Christ's  flesh  and  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  also  states  therein  that 
this  treatise  was  introductory  to  his  greater  work.  On  the  Resurrection  of 
the  Flesh.  The  resurrection  narratives  as  set  forth  in  the  gospels  are 
referred  to  and  interpreted  in  harmony  with  his  conception  of  a  bodily  resur- 
rection in  the  material  sense.  Thus  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third 
day,  and  was  received  back  into  heaven  {Answer  to  the  Jews  13).  He 
comments  especially  on  Luke's  narrative,  and  interprets  it  in  none  other 
than  in  a  material  sense,  enlarging  now  and  then  with  additional  proofs 
to  show  that  that  which  appeared  to  the  disciples  was  not  a  phantom,  but  a 
real  body.  He  says  that  Jesus  offered  his  hands  and  his  feet  for  examination, 
and  asked  his  disciples  for  some  meat,  for  the  express  purpose  of  showing 
them  that  he  had  teeth  {Against  Marcion  IV.  43).  The  Gospel  of  John 
does  not  state  that  Thomas  touched  Jesus  when  he  presented  himself  to 
him  in  the  upper  room;  but  TertuUian,  who  is  so  convinced  of  a  material 
risen  body,  asserts  that  Thomas  touched  him  and  that  "the  touch  was 
true  and  real"  {Soul  17).  It  is  also  very  interesting  to  notice  that  there 
are  imbedded  in  these  writings  two  traditions  concerning  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  which  are  unique.  The  one  states  that  Jesus  spent  forty  days 
with  his  disciples  down  in  Galilee,  a  region  of  Judea  {Apol.  21);  the  other, 
which  he  distinctly  calls  a  tradition,  reads  that  the  gardener  removed  the 
body  in  order  that  his  lettuce  might  not  be  spoiled  by  sight-seers  {The 
Shows  30). 


THE   GREAT  POLEMICISTS  59 

The  voluminous  material  into  which  TertuUian  has  drawn  us  through 
his  voluminous  treatment  may  be  thus  summarized:  (i)  the  resurrection 
held  the  foremost  place  in  his  writings,  and  his  treatment  of  it  was  largely 
apologetic,  being  directed  against  Gnostic  teachings;  (2)  the  resurrec- 
tion is  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  which  rises  again  "wholly  in  every  man, 
in  its  own  identity,  in  its  absolute  integrity,"  the  only  change  being  in  a 
perfection  of  the  flesh,  and  in  an  incorruption  on  the  part  of  those  who  will 
be  clothed  upon  when  they  enter  the  kingdom;  (3)  the  resurrection  nar- 
ratives of  Luke  and  John  are  adhered  to  in  the  references  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus;  and  there  is  not  merely  a  reproduction  of  the  crass  material- 
ism of  these  narratives,  but  the  body  is  either  consciously  or  unconsciously 
given  a  still  more  realistic  form;  (4)  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  Paul 
on  the  resurrection  are  comprehensively  treated,  but  misinterpreted;  (5) 
the  approach  to  the  resurrection  is  from  almost  every  standpoint,  and 
the  arguments  of  the  apologists  and  Irenaeus  are  recast  and  restated  in 
the  brightest  light,  together  with  additional  material. 

In  the  two  great  polemicists — Irenaeus  and  TertuUian — the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  became  crystallized  and  reached  its  fullest 
treatment.  The  doctrine  is  established;  it  has  currency  in  the  creed,  and 
the  arguments  in  substantiation  of  it  are  most  carefully  and  comprehen- 
sively wrought  out  by  TertuUian.  The  battle  against  the  Gnostics  is  won, 
and  from  henceforth  the  subject  receives  less  attention  and  very  little  incre- 
ment. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ALEXANDRIAN  SCHOOL 

Turning  to  the  Alexandrian  school  we  are  confronted  with  a  different 
situation  and  another  presentation  of  the  resurrection.  Alexandria  was 
the  fountainhead  of  Hellenistic  speculations,  and  there  is  an  a-priori  pre- 
sumption that  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  was  influenced  by  this  atmos- 
phere. An  inductive  study  at  once  reveals  the  fact  that  the  resurrection 
is  conceived  of  in  a  sense  other  than  it  was  by  Irenaeus  and  TertuUian. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  has  hardly  anything  to  say  on  the  resurrection.  It 
has  for  him  little  interest,  and  is  not  a  fundamental  doctrine  in  his  con- 
ception of  Christianity.  He  promised,  however,  a  treatise  on  the  resur- 
rection, but  evidently  he  never  composed  it,  or  if  so,  all  traces  of  it  are  lost. 
In  his  extant  writings  the  references  to  the  resurrection  are  not  merely 
brief  but  also  fanciful,  so  that  one  can  scarcely  be  confident  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  certain  passages.  Clement  repeatedly  speaks  of  the  after-life 
in  the  sense  of  immortality;  and  whenever  he  refers  to  the  future  life  in 
a  general  way,  one  receives  the  impression  that  in  the  hereafter  it  is  the  soul 
merely  that  survives.  Scripture  is  never  appealed  to  in  an  effort  to  prove 
the  resurrection,  or  in  an  attempt  to  set  forth  its  nature.  In  any  case 
Clement  invariably  approaches  Christian  truths  from  a  philosophical 
basis  rather  than  on  scriptural  grounds,  and  whenever  he  uses  Scripture 
he  prefers  an  allegorical  interpretation. 

Clement  disparaged  the  body  rather  than  elevated  it  to  the  dignity  which 
others  had  given  it.  He  does  not  think  that  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
is  necessary  on  the  ground  that  it  may  share  in  the  rewards  and  punishments. 
"The  soul  of  man  is  confessedly  the  better  part  of  man,  and  the  body  the 
inferior"  (Strom.  IV.  26).  The  body  is  the  source  of  sinful  tendencies, 
though  not  necessarily  evil.  Piety  is  for  him  ascetic,  a  steadfast  abstrac- 
tion from  the  body  and  its  passions.  "The  Gnostic  soul  must  be  conse- 
crated to  the  light,  stript  of  the  integuments  of  matter"  (Strom.  V.  11). 
The  elect  man  dwells  in  the  body  simply  as  a  sojourner;  for  he  leaves  his 
dwelling-place — his  body — and  turns  to  heaven,  giving  thanks  for  his 
sojourn  and  blessing  God  for  his  departure  (Strom.  IV.  26).  Souls  when 
released  from  their  bodies  in  Hades  are  able  to  perceive  more  clearly, 
because  they  are  no  longer  obstructed  by  the  paltry  flesh  (Strom.  VI.  6). 
Thus  in  his  general  attitude  to  the  future,  in  his  conception  of  piety,  and 

60 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  6 1 

seemingly  in  his  disparagement  of  the  flesh,  Clement  teaches  a  doctrine 
of  man's  survival  after  death  consonant  with  the  Greek  idea  of  immor- 
tality. 

On  the  other  hand,  Clement  speaks  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  He  repeats  these  stereotyped  expressions 
without  defining  their  content.  In  at  least  two  instances  he  refers  to  that 
which  rises  as  flesh  {Paed.  II.  lo;  III.  i).  But  at  the  same  time  it  is 
very  evident  that  he  does  not  endeavor  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  resur- 
rection is  a  fleshly  resurrection.  If  he  teaches  anything  concerning  a 
resurrection  body,  it  is  a  glorified  frame  which  is  to  be  different  from  this 
present  body.  Christ  rose  "through  fire,  as  the  wheat  springs  from  decay 
to  germination,"  or  as  earthly  fire  changes  wheat  into  bread.'  If  these 
words  are  to  be  taken  seriously,  then  fire  is  the  agent,  not  of  chastisement, 
but  of  sublimation,  by  which  an  organism  is  fitted  for  existence  in  a  new 
sphere.  Clement  also  uses  a  few  incidents  from  the  resurrection  narratives 
of  the  gospels,  and  one  from  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  but  without  comment 
or  application. 

The  situation  in  the  mind  of  Clement  is  something  like  this.  He  firmly 
believes  in  the  future  existence  of  the  soul.  This  is  in  conformity  with 
the  trend  of  his  thought  and  his  idea  of  the  relation  of  body  and  soul  and 
his  philosophical  tendencies.  But  he  cannot  free  himself  from  the  current 
accepted  terms  applied  to  the  resurrection.  Hence,  he  is  driven  to  an 
inconsistency,  saying  at  one  time  that  the  resurrection  is  of  the  flesh,  and 
at  another  that  flesh  is  so  sublimated  in  the  resurrection  that  that  which  is 
raised  is  some  kind  of  a  spiritual  body.  This  latter  view  lends  itself  more 
readily  to  his  philosophical  conceptions  of  Greek  immortality  and  undoubt- 
edly was  more  controlling. 

Origen  grew  up  in  the  same  atmosphere,  but  contrary  to  Clement's 
indifference  to  the  resurrection  he  discusses  it  with  painstaking  care.  The 
resurrection  has  a  real  and  necessary  place  in  his  system  of  thought;  and 
he  pieces  together  with  his  cunning  hand  his  general  views  on  the  subject 
and  the  scriptural  proofs  in  substantiation  of  it.  None  of  his  opinions, 
however,  were  more  vehemently  assailed  than  his  teachings  on  the  resur- 
rection. Even  in  his  own  time  many  were  offended  at  his  doctrine,  and 
Jerome  made  a  severe  attack  upon  him.  Origen  wrote  a  treatise  On  the 
Resurrection,^  which  is  unknown  to  us  save  by  a  few  fragments.     In  his 

1  Paed.  I  6:4:  (is  dviiTTafjLivrjv  8rj9ev  [5ia  irvp6s],  Kaddwep  iK  (pdopa^  Kal  airopas  0 
irvpbs  oLvdffTaTai,  Kal  p-ivToi  5id  wvphs  a\jvi.aTatxivriv  els  eiKppocx'uvTjv  iKKXrjffias  wi  Uprov 
iretcrbp^vov. 

2  Tiepl  dvaaTdLffeus. 


62  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

extant  writings  however  the  subject  is  treated  in  extenso.  The  doctrine 
of  the  soul's  immortaUty  according  to  the  Greek  idea  is  for  him  "a  doctrine 
of  pre-eminent  importance;"'  but  it  is  not  the  final  doctrine:  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  is  higher  and  truer.  "If,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
[souls]  do  exist,  we  have  still  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  immortality;  not  only 
by  what  the  Greeks  have  so  well  said  regarding  it,  but  also  in  a  manner 
agreeable  to  Holy  Scripture"  {Celsus  III.  22).  Origen  denies  the  doctrine 
of  metempsychosis;  confutes  chiliasm;  and  assails  the  Gnostic  denial 
of  the  resurrection. 

He  is  fully  aware  of  the  difficulties  urged  against  the  historic  accuracy 
of  the  four  gospels  with  reference  to  the  empty  tomb;  and  points  out 
some  of  the  contradictory  elements  in  the  narrative  {Celsus  V.  56).  But, 
notwithstanding,  he  emphatically  asserts  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  setting  forth  scriptural  evidences  to  show  that  he  was  seen  by  many 
after  the  resurrection  {Celsus  II.  70).  He  declares  that  without  the  reality 
of  Jesus'  resurrection  the  courage  and  lasting  sincerity  of  the  disciples 
would  be  an  enigma.  He  refutes  the  cavils  of  Celsus  who  asserted  either 
that  Jesus  was  an  impostor  {Celsus  II.  56);  or  that  his  resurrection  was 
a  mere  deduction  from  the  predictions  of  Jesus  (II.  54);  or  that  an  image 
of  what  was  desired  came  to  Mary  (II.  60). 

As  emphatic  as  he  is  on  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  so  emphatic  is  he  also 
on  the  resurrection  of  men.  The  soul  is  pre-existent,  nevertheless  created, 
and  at  death  passes  to  Hades,  the  prison  of  the  imperfect,  or  to  paradise, 
"the  mansion  of  the  blessed."  Nevertheless,  the  soul  continues  to  have 
a  body  in  this  intermediate  state,  as  is  shown  by  the  parable  of  Dives  and 
Lazarus.  That  the  soul  has  a  body  in  the  interim  between  death 
and  resurrection  is  an  increment  of  Origen  and  peculiar  to  him.  Tatian 
and  TertuUian  had  taught  that  the  soul  is  corporeal,  and  used  this  same 
parable  as  proof;  but  Origen  specifically  states  that  the  soul  is  incorporeal 
{De  Prin.  I.  7).  A  body  in  his  mind  is  an  added  element  that  clothes  an 
immaterial  soul.  This  body,  though  different  from  that  which  it  inhabited 
in  life,  is  still  a  body,  belonging  to  this  world,  and  must  not  be  identified 
with  the  resurrection  body,  since  the  resurrection  body  belongs  to  another 
world. 

What  now  is  this  resurrection  body  ?  In  his  argument  against  Celsus, 
who  had  ridiculed  a  bodily  resurrection,  he  says,  "Neither  we,  nor  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  assert  that  with  the  same  bodies,  without  change  to  a 
higher  condition,  'shall  those  who  were  long  dead  arise  from  the  earth 
and  live  again'  "  (V.  18).     The  body,  which  has  undergone  corruption, 

J  rbv  irpofiyoinevov  ij/uv  vfpl  ^vxv'  KaraffKevacTT^ov  \6yov. 


THE  ALEXANDRIAN  SCHOOL  63 

does  not  assume  its  original  nature  any  more  than  a  grain  of  wheat  which 
has  decayed  returns  to  its  former  condition  {Cehus  V.  23).  The  resur- 
rection body  will  be  the  same  as  the  present  body  and  yet  by  no  means  the 
same,  is  his  paradoxical  way  of  presentation.  Its  features  are  the  same, 
but  its  texture  is  quite  different.  It  will  be  adapted  to  the  requirements 
of  the  new  environment,  and  be  bereft  of  all  superfluous  organs.  In 
consequence  of  this  some  of  the  biblical  phrases,  like  the  "gnashing  of 
teeth,"  cannot  be  literally  understood.  Furthermore  the  resurrection 
body  of  the  wicked  will  differ  from  that  of  the  righteous  {De  Prin.  II.  3.) 
Of  still  greater  import  is  the  fact  that  the  body  when  cast  away  shall  be 
transmuted  into  a  condition  of  glory  which  renders  it  spiritual  {De  Prin.  III. 
5,  6).  He  calls  it  spiritual  because  the  material  is  entirely  changed.  A 
spiritual  body  is  for  him  not  a  sublimated  thing  which  has  neither  shape 
nor  content.  He  taunts  the  Gnostics  because  they  spoke  of  a  spiritual 
body  which  could  not  be  described  and  which  had  no  shape  {De  Prin. 
II.  10).  Heaven  and  earth  will  not  be  annihilated  at  the  consummation 
but  will  simply  be  changed  in  quality  and  transformed  in  appearance. 
Likewise,  also  the  bodily  nature  will  not  be  entirely  destroyed,  since  we 
cannot  conceive  that  beings  so  numerous  and  powerful  are  able  to  live 
without  a  body.  Created  beings  cannot  exist  without  a  body;  and  incor- 
poreal life  is  conceived  to  be  the  prerogative  of  the  Trinity  alone  {De  Prin. 

1.6:4). 

Origen  feels  himself  indebted  to  Paul  for  his  belief  in  a  resurrection 
body  which  mediates  between  the  soul's  immortality  and  a  reanimation 
of  this  flesh.  He  interprets  Paul  quite  accurately.  Thus  he  dwells  on 
his  image  of  the  seed  (Frag.  II.  On  Resur.;  Celsiis  V.  18,  19);  and  finds 
that  the  body  is  the  same,  not  by  any  material  continuity,  but  by  the  per- 
manency of  that  which  gives  the  law  of  its  constitution.  He  finds  place 
for  a  germinative  principle  called  the  "logos,"  which  is  implanted  in  the 
body  and  which  is  not  destroyed  (cf.  Celsus  V.  23).  In  other  words,  the 
soul  has  the  vital  principle  of  assimilating  matter  and  of  adapting  it  to 
its  environment.  The  same  principle  and  law  which  produce  daily 
changes  in  the  present  body  will  create  the  spiritual  body. 

With  perfect  consistency  does  he  interpret  the  gospel  narratives  on  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  compatibly  with  his  general  view  of  the  resurrection. 
Whatever  he  claims  for  the  resurrection  of  men  must  also  be  attached  to 
his  view  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  no  other.  Jesus  was  raised  and 
that  in  a  body,  which  was  the  antitype  of  the  former  body.'  The  mortal 
quality  of  the  body  was  changed  into  one  that  was  ethereal  and  divine. 

I  Contra  Celsum  II.  61:   iv  (XWfjiaTi  avririjirifi  iy-^yepOai. 


64  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN  ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

Commenting  upon  John  20:26,  27,  in  which  the  risen  body  is  conceived 
of  in  a  material  sense,  he  interprets  it  so  that  the  risen  body  is  conceived 
of  in  a  spiritual  sense.  "And  truly,  after  his  resurrection,  he  existed  in 
a  body  intermediate,  as  it  were,  between  the  grossness  of  that  which  he  had 
before  his  sufferings,  and  the  appearance  of  a  soul  uncovered  by  such  a 
body"  {Celsus  II.  62).  He  endeavors  at  some  length  to  show  that  the 
term  aa-w/xaTov  "incorporeal"  in  the  phrase,  "I  am  not  an  incorporeal 
demon, "  taken  from  an  uncanonical  book,  does  not  have  its  usual  meaning 
as  interpreted  by  Gentile  authors.  According  to  Origen's  interpretation, 
the  phrase  discloses  the  fact  that  attention  was  drawn  by  Jesus  to  his  resur- 
rection body;  that  is,  not  a  body  such  as  demons  have,  which  is  fine  and 
as  if  formed  out  of  air,  neither  does  it  resemble  this  gross  and  visible  body 
of  ours,  but  a  spiritual  body  which  continues  to  remain  solid  and  palpable 
{De  Prin.  Pref.  8).  This  is  most  significant,  since  the  quotation  from 
the  document  from  which  it  was  taken  and  as  used  by  Ignatius — assuming 
identity  or  relationship  between  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Doctrine  of  Peter — presents  the  resurrection  in  a  crassly  material 
way. 

Origen  also  finds  support  for  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  body  in  his  theory 
of  the  nature  of  matter.  There  is  a  philosophic  ground  agreeable  to  him 
for  the  change  which  the  body  can  undergo.  "Matter,  which,  properly 
speaking,  is  without  qualities,  receives  such  as  the  Creator  desires  to  invest 
it  with,  and  frequently  divests  itself  of  those  which  it  formerly  possessed 
and  assumes  others  of  a  different  and  higher  kind"  {Celsus  III.  41).  It 
is  quite  natural  for  this  body,  "which  we  style  animal,"  to  pass  into  a 
spiritual  condition  and  assume  spiritual  qualities,  since  "bodily  nature 
was  so  formed  by  the  Creator,  as  to  pass  easily  into  whatever  condition  he 
should  wish,  or  the  nature  of  the  case  demand"  (De  Prin.  III.  6:6,  cf. 
II.  2:2).  Transmutation  and  gradation  of  matter  was,  according  to  his 
theory  of  matter,  a  most  simple  affair.  Matter,  he  held,  can  exist  in  a 
crude  form  in  lower  orders  and  in  a  higher  form  in  spiritual  bodies. 

In  the  Alexandrian  school,  especially  in  Origen,  there  is  a  thorough- 
going and  consistent  restatement  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 
The  ground  for  this  view  is  found  not  merely  in  Scripture,  but  also  in  the 
laws  and  constitution  of  matter,  in  the  nature  of  the  soul,  and  in  the  germi- 
nating principle  of  the  Logos.  This  view  of  the  resurrection  does  not  clash 
with  his  theological  i)rinciples.  Besides,  in  Origen  there  is  the  first  real 
effort  made  to  point  out  that  the  resurrection  narratives  in  the  gospels  do 
not  consistently  teach  the  resurrection  of  a  material  organism,  but  that 
there  is  something  in  those  narratives  which  pre-supposes  a  spiritual  body. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  LATER  WRITERS 

The  idea  of  a  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense  received  its 
fullest  development  through  Tertullian,  while  with  Origen  the  Pauline 
idea  prevailed.  The  remaining  monuments  of  the  early  church,  falling 
within  the  third  century  and  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourth  century,  follow 
in  the  footsteps  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  while  the  conception  of  Origen 
falls  into  disfavor.  With  the  exception  of  Lactantius,  the  story  of  the 
resurrection  from  henceforth  moves  along  the  path  which  former  writers 
have  trod — with  little  increment. 

Methodius  stands  out  most  prominently.  He  vehemently  assailed 
Origen's  idea  of  the  resurrection,  and  this  occasioned  a  special  work  of  his, 
On  the  Resurrection.  The  original  work  is  lost,  but  large  extracts  have 
been  preserved  in  Epiphanius  and  Photius.  Like  his  Banquet  of  the  Ten 
Virgins,  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  Platonic  dialogue,  in  which  the  arguments 
of  Origen  are  set  forth  and  refuted.  He  declares  that  the  resurrection 
body  is  to  be  identical  with  the  mundane  body:  "The  body  shall  rise  with 
bones  again  joined  and  compacted  with  flesh"  {Banquet  of  the  Ten  Vir- 
gins IX.  2).  The  only  distinctive  marks  of  the  resurrection  body  are  an 
absence  of  dissolution  and  a  freedom  from  the  stains  and  pollutions  of  sin. 
Through  death  the  very  root  of  sin  is  torn  out  of  the  flesh ;  and  the  body, 
like  a  restored  temple,  is  raised  up  again  with  the  same  parts  uninjured 
(I.  5);^  or  it  is  restored  like  the  recasting  and  remodeling  of  a  statue 
when  spoiled  (I.  7,  8);  or  like  the  conflagration  of  the  earth  which,  after 
being  purified  will  again  exist  (I.  9).  Christ,  he  declares,  did  not  say  that 
in  the  resurrection  men  are  to  be  transformed  into  the  nature  of  angels; 
he  simply  said  we  shall  be  as  angels,  but  not  angels  as  they  are  without 
bodies  (I.  10-12). 

Almost  all  his  arguments  are  manifestly  borrowed  from  his  predeces- 
sors. Thus  man  is  composed  of  soul  and  body,  and  in  the  survival  of 
personality  the  body  cannot  perish.  The  term  "resurrection"  is  applied 
not  to  that  which  is  not  fallen,  but  to  that  which  has  fallen  and  rises  again, 
so  that  the  reference  is,  not  to  the  soul,  which  is  immortal,  but  to  the  flesh, 
which  dies  (I.  12).     The  mystery  of  the  resurrection  has  its  parallel  in  the 

I  All  references,  unless  otherwise  stated  are  to  the  collected  extracts  of  his  lost  work, 
On  the  Resurrection. 

65 


66  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

generation  of  man  (I.  14).  To  Paul's  expression,  "flesh  and  blood,"  is 
given  an  ethical  meaning  (III.  5).  He  sets  forth,  however,  an  original 
argument  when  he  makes  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  a  type  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. Just  as  the  tabernacle  when  fallen  down  is  again  built,  so  our  taber- 
nacle when  fallen  down  is  put  up  again  (I.  14).  There  is  in  Methodius 
the  fullest  expression  on  the  resurrection  subsequent  to  Origen,  but  it  is 
in  direct  opposition  to  Origen's  views  of  a  spiritual  body.  He  restates 
the  creedal  and  orthodox  position  with  perfect  consistency,  and  forces 
Jesus  and  Paul  to  agree  vdth  him. 

Hippolytus  also  declared  that  the  resurrection  must  be  taken  to  imply 
a  material  body.  The  fullest  and  most  significant  statement  is  in  one  of 
the  fragments  of  his  writings.  In  it  he  states  that  the  soul  of  the  departed 
passes  into  Hades.  For  the  righteous  this  will  merely  be  the  temporary 
abode,  but  for  the  wicked  it  will  be  the  ultimate  receptacle.  Then,  at  the 
appointed  time,  there  will  be  a  resurrection  of  all  men,  whereupon  the  soul 
will  unite  with  the  former  body,  and  will  not  be  transferred  to  another 
body  as  Plato  had  taught  (Frag.  Against  the  Greeks  or  Against  Plato). 
There  should  be  no  difficulty,  he  continues,  in  believing  in  this  resur- 
rection; for  if  God,  as  Plato  thought,  originated  the  soul  and  made  it  immor- 
tal, then  it  should  be  easy  for  us  also  to  believe  that  God  is  able  to  raise 
the  body.  There  is  a  vast  difference,  however,  between  the  resurrection 
bodies  of  the  righteous  and  those  of  the  wicked.  The  primeval  trans- 
gression makes  it  necessary  for  the  body  to  be  committed  to  the  earth. 
That  of  the  righteous  when  raised  will  be  molded  anew,  giving  to  it  the 
qualities  of  purity  and  incorruptibility.  "But  the  unrighteous  will  receive 
their  bodies  unchanged,  and  unransomed  from  suffering  and  disease,  and 
unglorified,  and  still  with  all  the  evil  in  which  they  died."  The  risen  body 
of  Christ  is  the  same  body  which  he  had  before  his  resurrection.  He  is 
the  firstfruits,  and  raises  that  flesh  which  is  common  to  all  humanity. 
Hence  we  have  in  him,  as  our  Savior,  an  assurance  also  of  our  own  resur- 
rection. From  the  gospel  narratives  are  selected  the  story  of  the  empty 
tomb  and  the  physical  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  in  John  and  Luke. 

Minucius  Felix  says  nothing  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  does  not 
use  Scripture  to  prove  any  of  his  ideas  on  the  resurrection.  The  query 
and  taunt  of  Caecilius  {Odavius  11),  who  wishes  to  know  whether  or  no 
Christians  rise  again  without  a  body,  with  the  same  body,  or  with  another 
body,  is  answered.  Octavius  is  made  to  say  that  the  world  is  to  be  con- 
sumed by  fire,  since  everything  which  has  a  beginning  has  an  end,  and 
that  the  ancient  philosophers  are  not  averse  to  a  burning  up  of  a  world; 
yet  it  is  evident  that  God  will  raise  up  our  former  bodies,  no  matter  what 


THE   LATER   WRITERS  67 

the  condition  after  death  will  be.  He  employs  the  time-honored  argument 
that  that  which  was  first  formed  by  God  can  be  re-formed,  since  the  latter 
is  the  easier  process.  He  also  uses  many  of  the  analogies  from  nature  which 
former  writers  had  originated  {Octavius  34). 

In  Commodianus  chiliasm  again  comes  to  the  front,  and  that  in  its 
most  literal  form.  Millenarianism  was  still  current  in  some  circles.  The 
resurrection  of  which  he  speaks  is  a  literal  restoration  of  the  former  body. 
The  Lord  will  appear  in  a  bodily  form  at  the  end  of  the  ages  and  the  fires 
will  come  and  touch  all  places,  but  the  camp  of  the  faithful  {Instructions 
41-45).  Commodianus  is  silent  as  to  the  final  and  general  resurrection, 
but  goes  into  details  with  reference  to  the  first.  In  the  first  resurrection 
the  city  will  descend  from  heaven;  the  believers  will  rise  again  and  will 
be  incorruptible;   then  they  will  live  for  a  thousand  years. 

Cyprian  presents  us  with  an  incidental  reference  to  the  resurrection, 
and  that  only  with  reference  to  Jesus.  He  emphatically  asserts  that  Christ 
both  "originated  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh"  and  also  showed  himself 
to  his  disciples  in  his  former  flesh  {Epistles  72:5).  His  other  reference, 
being  as  striking  and  singular,  reads;  "[Jesus]  appeared  to  his  disciples 
as  he  had  been.  He  gave  himself  to  the  recognition  of  those  that  saw  him, 
associated  together  with  him;  and  being  evident  by  the  substance  of  his 
bodily  existence,  he  delayed  forty  days,  that  they  might  be  instructed  by 
him  in  the  precepts  of  life  and  might  learn  what  they  were  to  teach"  {Treat- 
ises VI.   14). 

Novatian  closely  connects  salvation  with  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
He  believed  that  if  the  body  were  not  to  rise  then  there  would  be  no  salva- 
tion, and  if  God  were  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  save  it  then  there  would 
be  no  reason  for  having  created  it.  Christ's  resurrection  was  a  fleshly 
resurrection,  for  he  "was  raised  again  in  the  same  bodily  substance  in 
which  he  died;"  which  fact  is  evident  from  the  wounds  which  he  bore  in 
his  resurrection  body.  In  Christ's  resurrection  is  the  assurance  of  our 
own  resurrection,  since  he  shows  the  laws  of  that  resurrection  common  to 
men.  Paul's  expression,  "flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God,"  has  for  him  reference  to  the  guilt  of  the  flesh  and  not  the  sub- 
stance thereof  {Trinity  10;  cf.  21). 

In  addition  to  stereotyped  creedal  expressions  which  occur  in  his  writ- 
ings, Gregory  Thaumaturgus  refers  to  a  few  post-resurrection  incidents 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  taken  from  the  gospels.  "Christ,  on  rising  from  the 
dead,  showed  his  disciples  the  print  of  the  nails  and  the  wound  made  by 
the  spear,  and  a  body  that  could  be  handled,  although  he  also  had  entered 
among  them  when  the  doors  were  shut  with  a  view  of  showing  them  at  once 


68  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN  ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

the  energy  of  the  divinity  and  the  reality  of  the  body"  {Faith  i).  Herein 
is  a  noteworthy  increment  in  an  effort  to  explain  two  ill-according  ideas  in 
a  resurrection  narrative.  Another  increment  is  the  relation  of  the  virgin 
birth  to  the  resurrection.  Jesus  was  born  of  Mary  that  the  resurrection 
might  be  exhibited  and  life  eternal  instituted  in  the  world  {Homily  II). 

Archelaus  does  scarcely  more  than  assert  the  reality  of  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  and  the  consequences  accruing  therefrom,  in  his  opposition  to 
Manes  {Disputation  with  Manes  49).  Alexander  of  Alexandria  approached 
the  resurrection  from  a  truly  theological  standpoint.  Through  the  fall 
man  became  subject  to  death,  and  in  death  the  body  is  dissolved  and  returns 
to  dust;  but  through  Christ,  of  which  his  resurrection  is  an  integral  part, 
man's  body  is  capable  of  being  created  anew  in  the  future.  An  evidence 
of  this  he  finds  in  Matthew's  account  of  those  who  came  forth  from  the 
tomb  at  the  crucifixion,  being  released  by  Christ,  and  being  the  first  to  do 
so  {Epistle  on  tlie  Arian  Heresy  V.  3-6). 

Amobius  adheres  to  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  but  in  somewhat 
obscure  terms.  He  finds  it  symbolized  in  Plato's  myth,  where  the  world 
begins  and  revolves  in  an  opposite  direction,  and  in  which  a  reverse  develop- 
ment from  old  age  to  childhood  occurs  {Against  the  Heathen  II.  13).  He 
scorns  the  heathen  idea  of  a  punishment  in  the  infernal  regions,  when  at 
the  same  time  they  teach  that  souls  are  incorporeal.  The  soul,  however, 
is  neither  mortal  nor  immortal  but  neutral,  and  it,  as  well  as  the  body, 
must  be  made  immortal  by  the  will  of  God  (II.  31-36).  With  reference 
to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  he  says  that  after  he  arose  "he  manifested 
himself  in  open  day  to  countless  numbers  of  men;"  also,  "Lest  they  should 
imagine  that  they  were  deceived  by  unsubstantial  fancies  he  showed  him- 
self once,  a  second  time,  yea  frequently  in  familiar  conversations." 

In  the  Constitutions  of  the  Holy  Apostles  the  resurrection  is  described 
as  follows: 

The  almighty  God  himself  will  raise  us  up  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
according  to  his  infallible  promise,  and  grant  us  a  resurrection  with  all  those  that 
have  slept  from  the  beginning  of  the  world;  and  we  shall  then  be  such  as  we  now 
are  in  our  present  form,  without  any  defect  or  corruption.  For  we  shall  rise 
incorruptible:  whether  we  die  at  sea,  or  are  scattered  on  the  earth,  or  are  torn  to 
pieces  by  wild  beasts  and  birds,  he  will  raise  us  up  by  his  own  power  (V.  i,  7). 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  interpreted  from  the  gospels  is  in  a  fleshly 
body  (VI.  6,  30;  V.  i,  7;  V.  3,  19;  VIII.  i,  i).  The  assurance  of  a  fleshly 
resurrection  he  also  finds  in  the  symbol  of  the  phoenix,  in  the  examples 
of  those  who  were  raised,  and  in  the  analogy  of  procreation. 

In  the  ancient  Syrian  documents  there  is  very  little  on  the  resurrection; 


THE   LATER   WRITERS  69 

enough,  however,  is  found  to  indicate  that  whenever  the  term  resurrection 
is  used  it  has  reference  to  the  revivification  of  the  former  body;  and  enough 
to  convince  us  that  this  was  the  belief  of  the  Syrian  church.  In  the  apocry- 
phal New  Testament  books  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  assumes  all  kinds 
of  fantastic  shapes.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in  the  Gospel  of  Nico- 
denius;  wherein  we  may  observe  that,  in  addition  to  the  appearances  of 
those  mentioned  in  the  canonical  gospels,  there  was  an  appearance  also 
to  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  The  writing  also  shows  the  importance  which 
was  attached  to  that  Matthean  narrative  describing  the  guarding  of  the 
tomb.  In  the  Passing  of  Mary  the  resurrection  act  of  Jesus  was  repeated: 
Christ's  tomb  was  empty,  his  mother  was  placed  in  it,  her  body  was  raised, 
and  her  ascension  observed.  In  the  Revelation  of  John  every  human  being 
is  spoken  of  as  rising  when  thirty  years  old,  so  that  in  the  hereafter  all  shall 
be  of  one  appearance  and  one  size,  just  like  bees,  not  diflfering  one  from 
another. 

In  Lactantius  we  are  confronted  with  a  unique  and  peculiar  situation- 
His  teaching  on  the  after-life  abounds  with  inconsistencies.  The  only 
solution  to  the  problem  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  two  streams  of  influence — 
the  Greek  and  the  Christian — continued  to  remain  formative  in  his  life 
without  perfect  reconciliation.  Because  he  was  converted  to  Christianity 
late  in  life,  it  is  not  strange  that  this  should  have  been  the  case.  In  the 
first  place,  he  sets  forth  the  simple  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality — and 
he  devotes  much  more  space  to  this  than  he  does  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection — in  a  most  glorious  light.  The  chief  good  is  found  in  immor- 
tality alone.  The  world  has  been  created  that  we  may  be  born;  we  are 
born  that  we  may  acknowledge  the  Maker — God;  we  acknowledge  him 
that  we  may  worship  him;  we  worship  him  that  we  may  receive  immor- 
tality as  the  reward  of  our  labors;  we  are  rewarded  with  immortality  that 
we  may  receive  the  supreme  Father  and  Lord  forever,  and  may  be  to  all 
eternity  a  kingdom  of  God  {Divine  Institutes  VII.  6;  cf.  III.  12,  80). 
Immortality  is  a  gift  from  God  and  conditioned  on  virtue,  since  otherwise 
there  would  be  no  difference  between  the  just  and  the  unjust  {Divine 
Inst.  VII.  5).  In  proving  his  doctrine  of  immortality  he  does  not  appeal 
to  Scripture,  but  falls  back  on  the  heathen  writers.  Cicero  and  Virgil 
are  especially  appealed  to.' 

On  the  other  hand,  as  an  appendix  to  his  work,  and  seemingly  also  as 
an  appendix  to  his  real  convictions  an  this  matter,  he  treats  of  a  bodily 
resurrection.  Strange,  indeed,  that  side  by  side  with  his  simple  idea  of 
immortality  we  should  not  merely  find  references  to  a  literal  resurrection 

*  Especially  Cicero,  Tusculanae  Dispiitationes  I;   Virgil,  Aeneid  VI. 


70  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

of  the  flesh,  but  also  an  adherence  to  the  millenarian  and  apocalyptic  ideas 
{Divine  Inst.  VII.  24).  There  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  but  how 
this  is  possible  cannot  be  explained,  and  the  only  ground  for  a  resurrection 
of  the  body  which  he  presents  is  the  ground  that  "if  from  the  beginning 
God  formed  man  in  some  unspeakable  manner,  we  may  believe  that  the 
old  man  can  be  restored  by  him  who  made  the  new  man"  {Divine  Inst, 
VII.  23).  He  likewise  conceived  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  to  be  a  bodily 
resurrection,  dwelling  in  particular  on  the  empty  tomb  in  which  nothing 
was  left  "save  the  grave-cloths  in  which  he  was  vinrapped"  {Divine  Inst. 
IV.  19-21).  He  invents  a  peculiar  reason  for  Christ's  bodily  resurrection, 
maintaining  that  death  on  the  cross  was  chosen  because  it  reserved  the 
body  with  the  bones  uninjured  for  the  resurrection,  which  if  broken  would 
have  been  rendered  unsuitable  for  rising  again  {Divine  Inst.  IV.  26).  As 
to  a  spiritual  body  there  is  absolute  silence.  The  only  solution  to  these 
incongruous  elements  to  which  he  holds  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  Greek  idea 
of  immortality  and  the  Christian  traditional  idea  of  a  material  organism 
were  loosely  held  together  in  his  system  of  Christian  truth. 

With  the  exception  of  Methodius,  who  turned  the  tide  against  Origen 
and  caused  the  Pauline  conception  of  a  spiritual  body  forever  to  die  out  in 
Christian  history,  there  is  little  significance  attached  to  these  later  writers. 
The  discussion  of  the  resurrection  is  possibly  a  little  more  theological — 
relating  salvation  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  to  the  resurrection  of 
our  own  flesh — than  it  was  in  former  writers.  Lactantius,  who  stands  at 
the  close  of  our  period,  is  interesting  because  he  welded  together  the  Greek 
conception  of  immortality  and  the  Christian  idea  of  the  resurrection,  but 
this  was  neither  significant  nor  influential. 


CHAPTER  IX 

CONCLUSION 

In  making  a  recapitulation  of  this  survey,  we  shall  endeavor  (i)  to  set 
forth  the  current  idea  concerning  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body;  (2) 
to  indicate  the  formative  influences  which  crystallized  this  doctrine  and 
made  it  orthodox;  (3)  to  exhibit  all  variations  from  this  standard  concep- 
tion ;  (4)  to  point  out  the  theological  and  apologetic  arguments  which  were 
employed;  (5)  to  set  forth  the  use  and  interpretation  made  of  Scripture 
touching  the  resurrection;  (6)  to  present  the  bearing  of  the  facts  adduced 
with  reference  to  the  transmission  of  the  gospel  material  on  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus. 

I.  The  current  idea  of  the  resurrection  in  the  ante-Nicene  period  was 
that  of  a  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense,  or  of  this  very  flesh, 
with  all  its  particles  intact  and  unchanged.  From  the  first  post -Apostolic 
mention  of  the  resurrection  to  the  close  of  our  period  this  conception  is 
clearly  traceable.  Such  is  the  view  presented  in  all  the  surviving  mono- 
graphs of  the  period — pseudo-Justin,  Athenagoras,  Tertullian,  Methodius 
— and  such  is  the  conception  which  became  crystallized  in  the  early  creed, 
which  later  on,  in  an  enlarged  form,  became  the  common  creed  of  Christen- 
dom. Even  at  the  very  beginning  of  our  period  Paul's  conception  fell 
into  disfavor;  and  the  idea  of  a  fleshly  resurrection,  which  subsequent 
Fathers  more  fully  developed,  with  detailed  descriptions  and  accumulated 
arguments,  prevailed.  The  latter  half  of  the  second  century  and  the  open- 
ing years  of  the  third,  being  the  time  of  the  labors  of  the  apologists  and 
the  great  polemicists,  is  the  period  when  the  fleshly  resurrection  was 
described  in  its  fullest  and  most  realistic  terms.  An  absolute  identity 
between  the  mundane  and  the  heavenly  body  was  maintained.  The  body 
is  to  rise  with  the  same  form,  and  with  the  same  component  parts  and 
members,  from  the  grave,  as  it  possessed  while  alive.  And  not  merely 
will  the  same  body  be  restored,  but  also  ihe  same  substances  in  the  body. 
In  fact,  the  former  body  will  simply  be  reanimated  and  reinstated.  Many 
a  writer  assumed  a  quasi-scientific  attitude  in  his  attempt  to  set  forth,  in 
detailed  description,  just  exactly  how  the  resurrection  body  is  to  reappear 
from  its  dissolved  parts,  and  how  the  new  corporeality  is  to  be  constituted. 
Even  the  very  elements  and  minutest  particles,  even  if  they  are  dissolved 
and  mixed  up  with  other  elements  or  assimilated  into  the  tissues  of  animals, 

71 


72  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

will  be  recalled  and  will  take  their  original  place  in  the  body  which  is  to 
be  raised. 

The  same  gross  materialism  predicated  of  the  future  resurrection  life 
of  men  was  also  ascribed  to  the  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus.  The  fleshly 
resurrection  of  Jesus  was  attested  with  much  more  consistency,  and  with 
even  a  greater  realism,  than  it  was  set  forth  in  the  canonical  gospels.  Thus, 
for  example,  in  his  post-resurrection  life  Jesus  not  merely  ate,  but  the  food 
of  which  he  partook  is  purposely  described,  and  it  is  even  said  that  he  ate 
expressly  for  the  purpose  of  showing  his  teeth ;  he  not  merely  revealed  the 
Scriptures  to  his  disciples,  as  the  gospels  tell  us,  but  he  also  sang  hymns 
with  them;  he  not  merely  showed  his  crucified  body,  and  challenged  his 
disciples  to  touch  and  handle  him,  as  set  forth  in  John  and  Luke,  but  his 
wounds  were  actually  touched,  and  he  was  actually  handled ;  he  not  merely 
is  described  as  ascending  into  heaven,  with  a  silence  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  body  which  ascended,  but  his  ascension  as  well  as  his  session  is  in  "this 
very  flesh." 

A  few  modifications  in  the  resurrection  body  were  allowed  by  nearly 
all  writers  who  held  to  these  extreme  physical  conceptions;  but  in  their 
minds  these  did  not  in  the  least  contradict  a  fleshly  resurrection.  Thus, 
it  is  often  asserted  (i)  that  the  flesh  rises  perfect  and  entire,  without  any 
defects  and  deformities  which  may  have  been  acquired  through  birth  or 
accident;  (2)  that  the  body,  rising  with  its  former  members  and  organs, 
will,  nevertheless,  lose  some  of  the  functions  pertaining  to  these  organs, 
especially  those  of  procreation  and  digestion;  (3)  that  the  animalism  and 
the  corruptibility  adhering  to  the  earthly  tabernacle  will  find  no  place  in 
the  resurrection  body,  since  it  will  be  clothed  upon  with  incorruptibility. 
These  characteristic  changes  refer  only  to  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous; 
while  the  resurrection  body  of  the  wicked — whenever  such  a  resurrection 
is  predicted — persists  in  all  its  former  defects,  diseases,  and  corruptions. 

Doubtless  in  many  cases  where  the  resurrection  is  referred  to  without 
specifying  its  character,  it  is  a  fleshly  resurrection  that  is  tacitly  assumed. 
This  materialistic  view  is  unmistakably  present  in  the  apostolic  Fathers; 
but  it  is  briefly  stated  and  suggested,  rather  than  elaborately  argued.  In 
the  apologists  the  same  idea  assumed  a  more  definite  form,  a  firmer  ground, 
together  with  an  appeal  to  reason.  While  in  the  polemicists  the  same 
idea  was  couched  in  unequivocal  terms,  and  not  merely  defended  through 
reason,  but  also  supported  by  Scripture.  The  most  comprehensive  pre- 
sentation of  this  doctrine  appears  in  Tertullian,  who  gathered  together 
every  item  of  evidence  and  used  every  thread  of  reason  which  his  master 
mind  could  marshal.     Subsequent  writers  walked  in  the  footsteps  and 


CONCLUSION  73 

under  the  shadow  of  this  first  great  Latin  theologian,  calmly  and  securely, 
so  that  their  contribution  to  the  idea  of  a  fleshly  resurrection  is  very  small. 
Indeed,  this  latter  statement  need  not  be  confined  to  our  period ;  it  applies 
to  all  subsequent  Christian  history.  The  phrase  "resurrection  of  the 
flesh"  is  found  nowhere  in  Christian  literature  prior  to  Justin  {Dia.  80), 
but  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  was  current  and  widespread 
long  before  the  phrase  was  coined.  In  fact,  there  is  a  progression  of  terms 
each  conveying  the  same  content — the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body,  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.'  The  first  is  mainly 
biblical,  the  second  belongs  chiefly  to  the  early  Fathers,  while  the  last 
superseded  both  and  became  the  universal  phrase  of  Christendom,  finding 
its  way  into  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

2.  Four  influences  were  formative  in  creating,  establishing,  and  stand- 
ardizing the  idea  of  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  such  as  has  just  been  described. 
Two  of  these  were  negative — Hellenism  and  Gnosticism;  and  two  were 
positive — Jewish  messianism  and  the  resurrection  narratives  of  the  gospels. 

a)  We  began  with  an  a-priori  presumption  that  because  Christianity 
was  very  early  transported  to  Graeco-Roman  soil,  Graeco-Roman  influences 
would  be  operative.  An  inductive  study  has  revealed  the  truth  that  the 
Christian  idea  of  the  resurrection  was  materially  influenced  by  the  Greek 
conception  of  immortality.  Contrary,  however,  to  the  usual  influence 
of  Greek  thought  on  Christian  ideas,  the  influence  in  this  case  was  emphatic- 
ally negative.  It  has'been  correctly  pointed  out  that  the  tenets  of  official 
orthodoxy,  especially  ^vith  reference  to  the  idea  of  God  and  the  person  of 
Christ,  are  highly  colored,  in  form  and  content,  with  Graeco-Roman  thought. 
But  with  respect  to  the  resurrection  this  statement  does  not  hold  good. 
There  is  no  compromise  with  the  Greek  idea  of  immortality,  but  an  oppo- 
sition to  it.  The  early  church  set  itself  so  rigorously  against  the  simple 
doctrine  of  the  soul's  persistence  without  a  body  after  death,  that,  in  oppo- 
sition to  it,  it  was  impelled  to  set  forth  a  most  literal  and  gross  conception 
of  the  resurrection.  The  resurrection  of  a  physical  body  was  very  abhorrent 
to  Graeco-Roman  culture;  because  in  it  the  Platonic  idea  of  the  body — 
TO  CTw/ia  ayjfM — is  pronounced.  And,  in  opposition  to  Platonic  dualism 
and  the  disparagement  of  the  flesh,  the  apologists  not  merely  undertook 
to  show  its  worthfulness,  but  also  took  in  hand  a  detailed  demonstration 
of  the  resurrection  in  a  quasi-scientific  manner. 

h)  Gnostic  influence  is  parallel  to  Hellenistic  influence,  and,  in  reality, 

•  The  change  in  the  titles  of  the  early  monographs  is  scarcely  accidental,  but  con- 
veys some  significance:  Pseudo- Justin,  irepl  dvaardaews ;  Athenagoras,  irepl  ivaffrd- 
<rewj  veKpuv;   Tertullian,  De  Resurrectione  Carnis. 


74  IDEA  OF  RESURRECTION  IN  ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

was  an  indirect  way  in  which  Greek  influence  operated  most  strongly  on 
Christian  ideas.  The  Gnostics  denied  the  salvability  of  the  flesh  and  its 
resurrection;  and  thereby  erecting  a  hostile  camp,  they  became  a  negative 
influence  in  the  creation  and  the  establishment  of  the  orthodox  position. 
The  church  at  large  set  itself  most  vehemently  against  Gnostic  cosmology, 
and  the  dualism  and  Docetism  accruing  therefrom.  The  idea  of  the  resur- 
rection was  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter.  Gnosticism  outlined  its  whole 
scheme  of  redemption  by  beginning  with  a  denial  of  a  fleshly  resurrection. 
Irenaeus  and  TertuUian  met,  in  a  great  intellectual  combat,  every  argu- 
ment of  their  opponents;  and  in  doing  so  they  converted  the  idea  of  the 
resurrection  of  a  material  body  into  a  still  more  materialistic  conception 
than  Hellenism  alone  would  have  forced  them  into,  allowing  no  room  for 
any  variation  or  shadow  of  turning.  Just  as  the  articles  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed  were  called  forth  by  a  contra- Gnostic  or  contra-Marcion  tendency 
— of  which  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  one  expression — so  likewise  the 
bulk  of  the  arguments  in  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  arose  because 
of  the  counter-arguments  of  the  Gnostics.  Indeed,  these  negative  influen- 
ces— the  Hellenic  and  the  Gnostic — were  important  factors  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  crystallization  of  the  resurrection  conception. 

c)  It  was  pointed  out  in  a  former  chapter  that  the  Jewish  belief  in 
the  resurrection,  save  in  Alexandrian  Judaism,  was  that  of  a  bodily  resur- 
rection in  the  material  sense  for  the  purpose  of  participation  in  the  messianic 
kingdom.  The  resurrection  was  a  preliminary  condition  of  entrance 
into  that  sensuous  kingdom  to  be  established  at  the  time  of  the  Messiah's 
coming.  This  eschatological  element  was  all-controlling  in  the  days  in 
which  Christianity  had  its  birth  and  early  development.  Messianic  and 
apocalyptic  ideas  were  bodily  transferred  to  Christianity.  Salvation  was 
a  thing  of  the  future,  and  it  included  the  enjo5anent  of  a  visible  and  a 
material  kingdom  to  be  established  at  Christ's  second  coming.  A  neces- 
sary corollary  to  all  this  was  a  general  resurrection  in  which  the  dead  bodies 
were  to  be  reanimated  and  reinstated.  The  Jewish  apocalypses  imbedded 
in  Christian  thought  and  literature,  such  as  those  found  in  the  eschato- 
logical discourses  of  our  canonical  gospels,  and  the  apocalypses  of  John 
and  Peter,  were  a  most  potent  influence  in  the  creation  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  idea  of  a  fleshly  resurrection.  Chiliasm  likewise  was  an  ele- 
ment which  played  no  small  part  in  the  formation  of  the  resurrection  con- 
ception. The  saints  who  were  to  share  in  Christ's  kingdom  on  earth 
were  represented  as  rising  in  the  flesh;  and  it  was  a  logical  sequence  to 
project  into  the  second  resurrection  that  which  was  true  of  the  first.  When, 
however,  the  sensuous  view  of  an  earthly  temporal  kingdom  died  away, 


CONCLUSION  75 

and  when  chiliasm  was  no  longer  in  force,  and  when  the  goal  of  future  des- 
tiny immediately  became  heaven,  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh 
continued  to  persist  in  spite  of  the  cessation  of  the  influence  that  gave  rise 
to  it.  Though  the  Christian  idea  of  a  bodily  resurrection  was  propped 
by  other  than  Jewish  influences,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  however  that  it 
had  received  a  momentum  from  Jewish  messianism  which  carried  it  along 
in  history  beyond  the  days  of  chiliasm  and  apocalyptic  ideas. 

d)  Similarly,  the  gospel  narratives  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  both 
canonical  and  uncanonical,  were  formative  influences  in  the  creation  and 
crystallization  of  the  orthodox  position.  These  narratives,  as  a  whole, 
give  us  a  picture  of  a  mere  revivification  of  a  fleshly  body,  which  had  lain 
in  the  tomb.  The  empty  tomb  and  the  nature  of  the  appearances  as 
described  in  the  Gospels  of  John  and  Luke  naturally  control  the  uncritical 
student  in  the  formulation  of  his  conception  of  the  resurrection.  These 
narratives  are  so  realistic  and  so  simple  and  so  vivid  that  when  once  read  or 
heard  they  cannot  easily  be  blotted  out  of  the  memory;  and  the  tendency 
in  every  uncritical  mind  is  so  to  interpret  all  the  post-resurrection  narra- 
tives as  to  accord  with  the  most  realistic  ones,  and  also  to  interpret  Paul 
and  Jesus  in  consonance  with  them.  Unequipped  with  critical  apparatus, 
the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  did  just  this  very  thing — which  indeed  has  also 
been  done  repeatedly  since.  The  account  of  an  empty  tomb  and  a  bodily 
appearance  had  been  a  potent  influence  ever  since  it  was  conceived,  but 
more  so  after  oral  tradition  was  succeeded  by  written  narratives,  and  still 
more  so  after  these  had  become  canonical. 

3.  A  bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense,  though  it  was  in  the 
ante-Nicene  period,  the  prevailing  view,  was,  however,  not  the  exclusive 
view.  A  variety  of  other  views  which  differed  considerably  from  that  of 
the  church  at  large  were  sometimes  held  and  received  currency  in  some 
circles.  Naturally  we  think  first  of  the  Gnostics,  who  believing  only  in 
the  future  existence  of  the  soul,  denied  the  salvability  of  the  flesh  and  dis- 
claimed its  resurrection  from  the  grave.  Their  psychology  was  Platonico- 
dualistic.  They  asserted  the  destruction  of  the  body,  but  affirmed  the 
eternal  continuity  of  the  soul.  There  was,  however,  a  slight  deviation  from 
this  elementary  psychology  on  the  part  of  a  few  Gnostic  sects,  but  not  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  alter  this  fundamental  tenet.  Some  taught  a  resur- 
rection, not  of  the  soul  as  such,  but  a  continuance  of  something  within  the 
soul,  the  inner  or  intellectual  life  (Valentinus) ;  while  others  maintained 
that  the  resurrection  is  neither  of  soul  nor  of  body,  but  of  a  third  substance 
(Lucan) . 

In  the  second  place,  there  were  those  who  interpreted  the  resurrection 


76  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN  ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

in  an  ethico-religious  sense  instead  of  an  eschatological  sense.  They  taught 
that  the  resurrection  has  already  taken  place  in  the  believer  who  has  started 
in  the  new  life.  Such  a  view  is  referred  to  in  II  Tim.,  and  reappears  more 
fully  in  Paul  and  Thecla.  Now  the  Pauline  view  of  the  resurrection  is 
found  only  once  in  our  period,  and  that  is  in  the  Alexandrian  school. 
Origen  deliberately  denied  a  tlcshly  resurrection  and  held  consistently  to 
a  conception  compatible  with  Paul's  characterization  of  a  spiritual  body. 
This,  in  fact,  is  the  only  Pauline  peak  in  our  period.  The  ground  on  which 
Origen  based  his  ideas  was  twofold:  a  correct  interpretation  of  Pauline 
teaching,  and  a  philosoi)hic  conception  of  matter  not  incongruous  to  a 
spiritual  body. 

As  a  rule  every  Christian  monument  of  our  period  is  consistent — that 
is,  it  holds  to  the  one  or  the  other  view — but  there  is  also  an  inconsistency 
in  some  writers,  or  rather  an  overlapping  of  one  view  upon  another.  Just 
as  in  the  resurrection  appearances  described  by  Luke  and  John  the  idea  of 
a  spiritual  body  and  of  a  material  body  are  placed  side  by  side,  if  not  inter- 
woven or  even  welded  together;  so  likewise  in  the  Fathers  personal 
immortality  (Greek),  spiritual  body  (Paul),  and  a  material  body  (Luke- 
John)  sometimes  overlap,  and  this  in  various  combinations.  Athena- 
goras  postulates  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  in  as  gross  and  material  a  form 
as  could  be  imagined,  and  yet  there  are  passages  which  undoubtedly  reflect 
a  Pauline  thought,  and  when  read  in  isolation  from  the  rest,  come  close 
to  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  body.  In  fact,  he  goes  so  far  as  to  use  the  term 
"heavenly  spirit"  for  the  resurrection  body.  This  is  the  clearest  instance 
of  the  overlapping  of  the  Pauline  idea  upon  the  fleshy  idea.  This 
was  presumably  a  conscious  overlapping,  and  we  are  of  the  opinion 
that  the  same  thing  is  true  in  a  lesser  degree,  and  unconsciously,  in  some 
others.  Even  Irenaeus  and  TertuUian,  the  strongest  advocates  of  a  fleshly 
resurrection,  were  driven  to  make  some  compromises  with  Jesus  and 
Paul  whom  they  interpreted.  They  compromised  in  so  far  as  they  predi- 
cated a  clothing  upon  and  an  incorruptibility  and  a  state  of  discontinued 
organic  functions.  In  Lactantius,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  syncretism 
between  the  Greek  idea  of  immortality,  to  which  he  logically  holds,  and 
the  current  conception  of  a  fleshly  body,  associated  with  the  crudest  chiliasm. 
And  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  there  is  an  eclecticism  of  terms,  culled  from 
three  possible  conceptions. 

4.  A  variety  of  arguments  were  adduced  in  support  of  the  fleshly 
resurrection,  and  various  theological  implications  were  attached  to  this 
idea.  Gnosticism  vilified  the  flesh  and  denied  its  salvability,  while  the 
Alexandrian  school  held  to  its  inferiority;  but  the  church  at  large — and 


CONCLUSION  77 

this  was  often  the  first  step  in  the  argument — associated  salvation  with 
the  resurrection  of  the  tlesh.  The  two  ideas  were  as  a  rule  inseparable, 
so  that  salvation  of  the  flesh  and  resurrection  of  the  flesh  became  synonymous 
terms.  Salvation  was  conceived  wholly  eschatologically;  it  meant,  in  its 
Jewish  coloring,  eternal  life  and  the  enjoyment  of  everlasting  felicity  in  the 
presence  of  God  and  in  company  with  his  saints.  Eternal  life  apart  from 
the  participation  of  the  flesh  was  conceived  impossible.  Hence  the  neces- 
sity of  proving  the  religio-ethical  worth  of  the  body,  which  was  the  second 
step  in  the  argument.  The  flesh  was  created  by  God,  and  not  by  the 
Demiurge  or  angels;  it  had  a  special  creation,  was  stamped  in  God's  image, 
is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  God,  it  was  declared,  could  not  destroy 
his  own  creatures,  much  less  his  image  in  which  his  Spirit  resides.  Hence 
the  flesh  cannot  be  destroyed,  but  must  rise  again.  Furthermore,  the  flesh 
is  not  the  sole  source  of  man's  sinfulness,  but  both  soul  and  flesh  act  together; 
wherefore  both  must  again  be  united  after  death  for  judgment. 

More  significant  still  is  the  use  made  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  in  this 
connection.  The  earliest  apologetic  use  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was 
to  show  his  messiahship,  as  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  New  Testament. 
Then  his  resurrection  was  made  an  apologetic  to  substantiate  his  divinity. 
But  the  chief  use  to  which  his  resurrection  was  put,  and  that  very  early 
(cf.  Ignatius),  was  to  prove  his  humanity  and  the  reality  of  his  flesh.  The 
proving  of  the  physical  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  often  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  it  served  as  a  link  in  a  series  of  anti-Docetic  arguments  in  which 
the  reality  of  the  flesh  of  Jesus  was  at  stake.  One  purpose  of  adducing 
Christ's  resurrection  was  merely  to  show  that  he  really  assumed  flesh.  In 
the  theological  thinking  of  the  early  church,  the  reality  of  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
and  the  resurrection  of  that  flesh  were  indissoluble,  and  of  momentous 
consequence  to  man's  redemption  and  salvation.  The  reason  that  Christ 
assumed  flesh  was — it  was  alleged — for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  flesh  of 
man,  which  otherwise  would  have  been  destined  to  decay:  that  is,  in  Christ's 
flesh  and  in  the  resurrection  of  that  flesh  is  the  assurance  of  our  own  fleshly 
resurrection.  It  was  also  asserted  that  if  Christ's  resurrection  was  not  a 
bodily  resurrection  in  the  material  sense  then  the  Eucharist  is  of  no  effect, 
and  man  fails  to  take  the  "medicine  of  immortality."  A  few  of  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers  also  associated  the  virgin  birth  with  the  resurrection,  affirming 
that  through  that  birth  his  flesh  became  incorruptible  so  that  it  could  rise 
again.  The  Pauline  idea  that  Jesus  was  raised  for  our  justification  is 
however,  never  referred  to. 

But  there  were  also  other  arguments  in  support  of  the  current  concep- 
tion of  the  resurrection.     The  arguments  thus  far  considered,  from  the 


78  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN  ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

Standpoint  of  salvation,  applied  only,  in  logical  consistency,  to  the  righteous. 
But  the  unrighteous  souls  were  also  conceived  of  as  coming  forth  from  Hades 
on  the  last  day  uniting  with  their  former  bodies,  that  they  might  be  judged 
and  receive  punishment.  Although  the  soul,  whether  spoken  of  as  cor- 
poreal or  incorporeal,  was  thought  of  as  being  sensible  to  inflictions  and 
blessings;  nevertheless,  full  recompense  could  not  be  given  in  the  disem- 
bodied state.  Again,  it  was  thought  unworthy  of  God's  goodness  and 
justice  not  to  allow  the  flesh  to  share  in  the  rewards  of  its  good  works,  or 
in  the  punishment  of  its  evil  works.  Finally,  the  Fathers  undertook  to 
show  that  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  was  perfectly  natural,  and  that  God 
has  both  the  power  and  the  knowledge  and  the  will  to  bring  it  about.  If 
God  could  create  the  body  in  the  beginning,  he  surely  can  re-create  it  from 
the  dissolved  elements  at  the  last  day.  The  analogy  of  the  seed,  the  plant, 
the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the  seasons,  and  the  symbol  of  the  phoenix  were 
furnished  as  collaterally  confirming  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection. 
The  mystery  of  life  and  growth  from  procreation,  the  scriptural  miracles 
of  healing,  and  the  final  end  of  man  were  also  used  as  proofs  of  a  physical 
resurrection. 

5.  Just  as  there  is  no  uniform  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  resur- 
rection, so  there  is  also  no  uniform  system  in  the  use  and  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  Those  who  adhered  to  the  current  conception  of  the  resurrection, 
as  a  rule,  followed  in  a  certain  line,  and  deviated  very  little  from  one  another; 
while  the  methods  of  Origen  and  the  Gnostics  are  at  variance  with  them. 
The  church  at  large,  from  the  very  first,  endeavored  to  find  authoritative 
proof  in  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of  its  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh.  The  two  passages  in  the  canonical  Old  Testament  literature 
which  set  forth  a  resurrection  were  used  a  few  times  as  proof-texts:  the 
passage  from  Isaiah  being  used  at  least  six  times,  the  passage  from  Daniel, 
three  times.  However,  in  their  search  for  proof-texts  and  in  their  depend- 
ence upon  the  Septuagint,  which  at  times  deviates  from  the  original,  the 
orthodox  Christians  found  a  great  many  passages  substantiating  the  resur- 
rection of  the  former  body.  Psalms  and  Job  were  freely  used  in  this  way. 
The  translation  of  Elijah  and  Enoch,  the  preservation  of  Jonah  in  the 
whale's  belly,  and  the  preservation  of  Ananias  and  Azarias  and  Misael  in 
the  fire  were  also  used  as  proofs  of  the  possibility  of  a  bodily  resurrec- 
tion. The  classic  example  in  the  Old  Testament  for  them  was  Ezekiel's 
vision  of  the  Valley  of  Dry  Bones.  There  was  also  a  slight  dependence 
on  the  apocalyptic  literature,  especially  the  Book  of  Enoch. 

As  concerns  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  there  is,  in  the  first  place, 
a  dependence  on  the  Christian  apocalypses  as  preserved  in  our  gospels. 


CONCLUSION  79 

in  Paul,  and  in  Revelation.  The  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus,  too,  was 
freely  used  in  the  interest  of  the  resurrection.  Nevertheless,  the  most 
significant  and  far-reaching  use  of  Scripture  was  in  reference  to  the  resur- 
rection narratives  of  Jesus.  Literary  dependence  is  shown  on  all  the  canon- 
ical gospel  narratives,  and  explicitly  on  one  uncanonical  gospel — the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  used  by  Ignatius  and  Origen,'  and 
probably  by  pseudo-Justin.  Ignatius  places  it  on  a  par  with  the  other 
gospels  and  selects  it  for  his  purpose,  because  a  certain  passage  in  it  por- 
trays the  physical  resurrection  of  Jesus  in  bolder  relief  and  with  more 
consistency  than  it  is  depicted  in  the  canonical  gospels.  Origen  states  that 
this  book  is  uncanonical,  but  yet  he  feels  that  he  must  make  use  of  a  certain 
striking  expression,  which  was  perpetuated  through  it.  This  fact  is  suffi- 
cient to  suggest  that  this  gospel  must  have  been  influential,  and  that  the 
resurrection  account  contained  therein  exerted  a  silent  influence.  It  seems 
evident,  therefore,  that  pseudo-Justin,  and  some  of  the  other  writers  in  whose 
works  there  is  such  a  realistic  description  of  the  touching  and  handling  of 
Jesus,  were  either  directly  or  indirectly  influenced  by  this  gospel. 

In  the  use  of  the  canonical  gospels  the  same  principle  of  selection 
which  controlled  Ignatius  persists.  The  literary  use  of  the  resurrection  nar- 
ratives of  the  Gospels  of  John  and  Luke  exceed  those  of  Mark  and  Matthew 
in  the  proportion  of  one  to  ten,  and  if  we  deduct  the  present  conclusion  of 
Mark,  we  shall  have  very  little  left  which  is  taken  from  Mark  and  Matthew. 
The  account  of  the  watch  at  the  tomb  and  the  report  to  Pilate  received 
some  attention;  Jesus'  appearance  to  the  women  is  spoken  of  only  a  few 
times,  and  then  never  in  its  purely  Matthew-Mark  form ;  while  his  appear- 
ance in  Galilee  (not  speaking  of  the  imbedded  apostolic  commission, 
which,  of  course,  was  often  separately  used)  was  practically  never  used, 
save  possibly  as  it  is  caricatured  in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  The  same 
principle  of  selection  is  still  more  marked  within  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and 
John  themselves.  The  two  outstanding  accounts  in  which  the  fleshly 
character  of  the  risen  Jesus  is  most  pronounced  within  these  gospels,  are 
Luke  24:  36-43;  and  John  20:  26-29.  These  two  narratives  are  repeat- 
edly and  incessantly  used  by  the  Fathers,  in  preference  to  any  of  the  other 
narratives  within  these  gospels.  And  within  these  narratives  two  expres- 
sions of  Jesus  especially  prevail:  the  one,  "See  my  hands  and  my  feet, 
that  it  is  I  myself:  handle  me,  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones,  as  ye  behold  me  having;"  the  other,  "Reach  hither  thy  finger,  and 
see  my  hands;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand  and  put  it  into  my  side."     More- 

I  Whatever  is  the  truth  concerning  the  identity  or  relation  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Doctrine  of  Peter  will  not  in  the  least  affect  this  deduction. 


8o  IDEA   OF   RESURRECTION   IN   ANTENICENE   PERIOD 

over,  these  narratives  are  not  merely  repeated  as  they  are  reported  in  our 
gospels;  but,  as  a  rule,  they  are  highly  colored  with  comments  and  at 
times  misquoted.  The  accounts  are  elaborated  to  assert  an  unmistakable 
fleshly  body.  The  challenge  to  be  touched  and  handled  is  changed  to  a 
real  touch  and  a  real  handUng.  The  incongruity  of  having  Jesus  pass 
through  closed  doors  and  the  ne.xt  moment  standing  in  his  former  body, 
as  a  rule,  was  not  felt.  Once  or  twice,  however,  an  attempt  of  reconcilia- 
tion was  made.  Irenaeus  attempts  to  solve  the  difficulty,  by  tr\'ing  to 
show  that  Jesus  did  the  same  thing  before  his  death  when  he  passed  unin- 
jured through  the  crowd  that  wished  to  apprehend  him.  Gregory  Thau- 
maturgus  e.xplains  the  phenomenon  by  saying  that  the  one  act  was  to  show 
forth  the  energy  of  his  divinity  and  the  other  the  reality  of  his  flesh.  One 
is  surprised  to  find,  however,  that  comparatively  little  use  was  made  of  the 
empty  tomb. 

In  harmony  with  this  interpretation  of  the  resurrection  narratives  of 
Jesus  is  the  attitude  assumed  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  of  Paul. 
The  ante-Nicene  Fathers  interpreted  Jesus  as  teaching  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  flesh  in  his  discourse  to  the  Sadducees.  TertuUian  is 
spokesman  for  the  current  view  when  he  says  that  Christ  affirmed  the 
resurrection  of  the  two  natures  of  man — flesh  and  spirit.  Paul  was  inter- 
preted in  the  same  way.  His  conception  of  a  spiritual  body,  having  found 
no  acceptance,  was  explained  away.  The  term  "spiritual  body"  meant, 
in  accordance  with  their  interpretation,  a  body  not  devoid  of  flesh  and 
blood,  but  regenerated  and  controlled  by  divine  spirit.  "Flesh  and  blood" 
was  interpreted  in  an  ethical,  not  in  a  physical  sense.  The  expression 
"being  clothed  upon"  could  not  apply,  it  was  thought,  to  disembodied 
souls,  but  to  a  fleshly  body.  Paul's  illustrations  and  comparisons  were 
always  used  in  the  interests  of  a  physical  body.  But  what  about  incor- 
ruptibility, in  the  angelic  state,  and  the  purpose  of  this  supervesture  ? 
This  could  not  be  boiled  down  in  their  material  crucible.  Hence  the  para- 
dox— appearing  a  few  times — that  human  beings  undergo  a  change  in  their 
unchanged  substance  of  the  flesh. 

Origen  pointed  out  contradictory  elements  in  the  resurrection  narratives 
of  the  gospels,  and  at  the  same  time  made  argumentative  use  of  these 
narratives  in  which  the  physical  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  is  evi- 
dently affirmed  but  he  spiritualized  the  accounts.  Jesus,  he  maintained, 
existed  in  a  body  intermediate  between  the  grossness  of  that  which  he 
had  before  his  suffering  and  a  disembodied  spirit.  He  adopted,  more  or 
less,  the  interpretation  current  among  many  theologians  today,  namely  that 
there  was  a  difference  between  the  post-resurrection  body  and  the  ascen- 


CONCLUSION  8l 

sion  body.  Paul  and  Jesus  are  correctly  interpreted  by  him  and  are  made 
to  conform  to  the  conception  of  a  spiritual  body.  The  Gnostics  allegorized 
the  biblical  term  "resurrection  of  the  dead,"  and  conceived  the  resur- 
rection appearances  to  be  non-material,  asserting  that  the  flesh  of 
Jesus  was  never  real.  They  found  also  in  Jesus  and  Paul  a  testimony 
to  a  non-fleshly  resurrection.  Although  charged  with  allegorical  inter- 
pretation, they  for  some  reason  or  other  came  nearer  to  the  conclusions 
which  historico-grammatical  interpretation  reaches  respecting  the  thought 
of  Jesus  and  Paul  than  did  the  church  at  large  with  its  dependence  on  the 
Gospel  writers,  and  its  control  of  Jesus  and  Paul  by  these. 

6.  Finally,  the  facts  investigated  will  admit  of  another  deduction, 
and  that  is  with  reference  to  the  transmission  of  the  gospel  material  on  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  prior  to  the  fixing  of  that  material  in  our  present 
gospels.  Now  if  certain  forces  operated  of  which  we  have  direct  documen- 
tary evidence  and  if  these  forces  were  in  existence  before  such  evidence 
is  traceable,  then  we  may  suppose  that  these  forces  which  the  evidence 
shows  to  have  been  operative  operated  further  than  the  records  directly 
prove.  Our  study  has  revealed  the  fact  that  certain  influences  were  potent 
in  the  creation  and  estabhshment  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  that 
they  operated  from  the  very  beginning,  and  that  they  were  in  existence  in 
the  time  of  oral  gospel  transmission — affecting  naturally  the  later  gospels, 
Luke  and  John,  or  the  Judean  cycle  of  resurrection  appearances,  more 
than  the  earlier  gospels,  Mark  and  Matthew,  or  the  Galilean  cycle  of 
appearances. 

Thus  we  have  clearly  discerned  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  flesh  was  a  vital  question  in  the  ante-Nicene  period;  that  even  when 
many  of  the  other  doctrines  of  the  church  were  not  yet  vitally  discussed, 
much  less  systematized,  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  had  already  reached 
its  pinnacle,  and  had  become  a  fourth  article  in  the  Old  Roman  Symbol 
added  to  the  three  of  the  baptismal  formula;  that  in  a  little  more  than 
a  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  was 
appended  to  a  creed ;  and  that  in  less  than  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
the  First  Gospel  was  written  this  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh 
was  fully  developed,  and  almost  the  last  words  as  to  the  nature  of  this 
body  were  spoken  together  with  the  apologetic  and  theological  arguments 
in  support  of  it.  Moreover,  we  have  also  observed  that  there  was  a  con- 
stant tendency  in  the  church  at  large  to  define  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
in  ever  more  realistic  terms,  the  crudest  realism  coming  forth  out  of  the 
apocryphal  gospels;  that,  in  the  use  of  the  gospel  narratives,  the  written 
records  were  manifestly  changed,  through  comments  and  variations  in 


82  IDEA  OF   RESURRECTION  IN  ANTENICENE  PERIOD 

quotations,  in  order  to  teach  an  ever  more  undisputed  physical  conception 
of  the  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus.  Such  a  tendency  appears  still  more 
clearly  in  a  comparative  study  of  the  records  in  which  the  tradition  of  the 
resurrection  narratives  of  Jesus  has  come  down  to  us — whereby  it  is  evident 
that,  by  pushing  back  through  the  uncanonical  Gospel  of  Peter  and  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  to  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Matthew, 
or  even  to  the  epistles  of  Paul,  we  pass  from  the  conception  of  a  material 
body  to  a  spiritual  body,  and  that  between  these  two  extremes,  that  is,  in 
Luke  and  John,  there  is  an  overlapping  of  both  conceptions.  We  have 
also  noticed  that  Gnosticism  was  a  tremendous  force;  that  in  Gnosticism, 
Docetism  was  a  ruling  element;  that  in  the  early  apologetic  of  the  church 
the  idea  of  a  fleshly  resurrection  was  used  as  a  link  in  a  series  of  arguments 
to  substantiate  the  reality  of  Christ's  flesh,  and  nothing  more;  and,  sig- 
nificantly, that  this  incipient  Gnosticism  with  its  Docetic  tendencies  had 
its  root  far  back  in  New  Testament  times.  In  like  manner,  we  have 
observed  that  Pharisaic  Judaism  predicated  a  restoration  of  the  former 
body  for  the  purpose  of  sharing  in  the  messianic  kingdom  and  that  early 
Christianity  bodily  inserted  this  into  its  system  of  thought. 

Therefore,  by  bringing  all  these  facts  together,  it  becomes  apparent 
that  these  positive,  and  these  still  stronger  negative,  influences  on  the  idea 
of  the  resurrection  were  operative  already  in  the  period  of  oral  gospel 
transmission,  and  that  they  must  have  been  potent  and  formative  on  those 
resurrection  narratives  imbedded  in  the  later  gospels — Luke  and  John — 
narratives  descriptive  of  actual  appearances,  which  have  had  a  real  founda- 
tion in  experience,  but  which,  in  the  period  of  oral  transmission,  became 
highly  colored  with  physical  conceptions  from  an  apologetic  motive. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6233 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


MARl    19fiR 


■3 


'  Ml 

■n 


